The USA has declared war on Iran and Syria

Today's major problem:

So many Christians...so few lions!

0 Replies

Frank, Excellent! LOL

0 Replies

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not refusing to open dialogue with Iran because of how women are treated or because of Islam in general, right? So maybe there is more to what Friedman had to say.

0 Replies

FreeDuck, Bush doesn't want to negotiate a peace with Iran, because they're developing WMDs. Gotta love it when conservatives continue to blame Clinton for letting North Korea build nukes, then are silent when Iran does the same thing during Bush's watch. Hypocrisy comes to mind.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

You're preaching to the choir, Bill, I think all religious beliefs, beliefs in magic numbers or the power of the stars to lead us are wacko and ultimately self-destructive...

...But, and it's a big but, the war against the jihadists cannot be won by armies or arms.

Joe(Shooting the ones who are shooting is the easy part.)Nation

I think we're actually in full agreement here. I see little hope in attacking hidden forces head on in hopes of eradicating them. The best we can hope for is to save the next generation and that can't happen in a Theocratically controlled environment. I've spent countless hours reading the websites from ex-Muslims. At first; they appear to be PNAC-style flame sights designed to promote hatred of Muslims in general. Upon further study; I don't think that's really the case. The one I've borrowed from most often is an ex-Muslim Iranian named Ali Sina. He is a driven man, but not by oil... or a desire for the U.S. to dominate the Middle East. The more of his material you absorb; the clearer it becomes that he seeks to free Muslims themselves from the lies that predicate their lives.

A major tactic is humiliation. Over and over he describes the usefulness of humiliation to get an individual to wake up. One example that first offended, before I understood was his take, was on the Hijab.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/19.htm
A comprehensive understanding is summarized as "Combat stupidity with humiliation."... and I think it has merit.

It's no secret the United States went to bed with some of the worst scum the world has to offer, in fears of the greater evil; The Soviet Union. In retrospect; it would appear our scheming has resulted in assisting in the creation of a greater enemy than that which we schemed to destroy. By turning the blind eye while religious fanatics effectively took control of entire populations; we have essentially created an enemy manufacturing system that turns out the scariest enemies of all; religion-driven fanatics. This is today's Iran. The students have fought hard against the fanatics, for decades, and if ever meddling was called for it is their purpose that should be assisted. Essentially; Freedom.

In retrospect; was Amin Al-Husseini any less a threat to mankind than Hitler? I think not. Here is the guy who studies of everyone from Saddam to Bin Ladin to Arafat always lead back to. In our fight against fanaticism; it would appear we overlooked the worst type of fanaticism there is. Overlooked hell; at times we embraced it. Crying or Very sad

So how do you correct such a monstrous error? I don't think hiding under the bed while generations of children are indoctrinated into a heinous world of intolerance, where over 50% of citizens are born into a world of essential slavery with no hope is the answer. Is tolerance for intolerance really the answer? Judging by the actions of Afghanistan, Iran and the un-bribed majority of Saudi Arabia; I'd say the answer is a resounding NO!

Until such time as the suffering majority of people who inhabit "Muslim lands" are set free to think for themselves; this saga will go on forever. Since an integral part of the hideous ideology being taught is intolerance for you and me; one need not give a hoot about the suffering masses elsewhere for it to be in their own best interest to help them.

Statistically speaking; the amount of death and destruction a regime is likely to cause can be measured by the degree in which it denies freedom to its citizenry. So far; no one can compete with the Soviets in this regard... but the world is young. Rue the day when the preachers of intolerance who lead the most faithful of faithful are granted access to 21st century killing machines. There is nothing more dangerous than the murderous man who believes in his soul he is right. Theoretically WMD and fanaticism won't mix well... and if we're extremely lucky; this won't soon be proven fact.

For the Muslims;

Quote:

Some people just abandon there dreams.
They take for granted things will never get better is seems.
But after you've been knocked to the ground.
That's when honest strength can really be found.

Some lives can just never be saved.
Some have to suffer till they probably welcome the grave.
But if that's what you were taught to believe.
Then you never had a chance to be free.

Islam, they will tell you it's great.
The perfect gospel for the greedy to fill you with hate.
If you love God, stand up and shout,
Don't you wonder what it's really about?

Your land's hold an ocean of Gold.
They keep you angry so you don't care what's bartered and sold.
But the land's riches belong to all men.
And the women, please, don't forget them.

I'm sure you're aware of, all State's did there share of, holding you down.
While their own God poured from the ground.

It's time that you that figure this out.
It's not for you your tyrants insist you're devout.
While the Kings live in castles you make.
It is your own life that's really at stake.

True God's will never ask you to kill.
And for Heaven's sake; have you not had your fill?
After so many fathers and sons,
Do you still thing this fight can be won?

The Jews and the Muslims, they've both paid King's ransoms, and what was it for?
Gasoline for your neighbor next door.

They say you just can't live in peace.
You'll just keep living with Islamo-facist disease.
But that doesn't have to be true.
The truth is that it's all up to you.

Say no to the tyrants, demand independence, they can't beat you all
and if they try give your new friends a call.

Some people just abandon there dreams.
They take for granted things will never get better is seems.
But that doesn't have to be true.
The truth is that it's all up to you.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not refusing to open dialogue with Iran because of how women are treated or because of Islam in general, right? So maybe there is more to what Friedman had to say.

Probably this is more akin to why we have done what we have done with regard to Fidel Castro and Cuba.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have acted like kids...refusing to talk to people with whom they disagree on occasions...

...mostly, in my opinion, because possible loss of votes means more than doing what is right...and actually leading rather than looking at which way the crowd is running and then running to the front of the group pretending to be leading.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not refusing to open dialogue with Iran because of how women are treated or because of Islam in general, right? So maybe there is more to what Friedman had to say.

Yep. More lies to feed the anti-war crowd what they want to hear (irrespective of the truth) and to sell newspapers. Ignoring all of his falsities about Iranian women for a moment; let's examine the rest of Friedman's Bull Sh!t:

Friedman wrote:

Country A regularly holds sort-of-free elections.

Interesting wordplay, there. Sort-of-free. The truth: Country A routinely kidnaps, jails and murders political opponents on a regular basis. Only Presidential candidates approved by the true dictator, the Supreme Leader, can run. In what demented reality should this be described as sort-of-free elections?

Friedman wrote:

Although it's a Muslim country right next to Iraq, Country A has never sent any suicide bombers to Iraq,

It has been widely reported that the very best road-side bombs come from Country A. Country A has dozens of training camps where it's Revolutionary Guard trains disciples in terror, including but not limited to, Suicide Bombing. It is common knowledge that fighters from Iran are indeed present in Iraq. Aside from misleading people; where is the relevance in Friedman's unsubstantiated guess, which he passes off to his choir as fact?

Friedman wrote:

and has long protected its Christians and Jews.

That's a hoot. Need I place evidence to the contrary here; or can we all agree that Friedman is once again talking out of his A$$?

Friedman wrote:

The brand of Islam practiced by Country A respects women, is open to reinterpretation in light of modernity and rejects Al Qaeda's nihilism.

The only portion of this statement that's true; is that the Mullah's do indeed reject Al Qaeda's nihilism. But what has this to do with a comparison to Country B? Is Saudi Arabia any less totalitarian than Iran? Do they not believe in their borders? Al Qaeda's apparent desire to return to the days of the Ottoman Empire are neither supported by Country A nor Country B so once again Friedman is talking out of his A$$. Further, they certainly do not respect women they are certainly NOT open to reinterpretation in light of modernity (save their own self-serving perversions) and in fact the only truth here is that Iran's Shia are opposed to a Sunni terrorist group. Big shock, that.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not refusing to open dialogue with Iran because of how women are treated or because of Islam in general, right? So maybe there is more to what Friedman had to say.

Probably this is more akin to why we have done what we have done with regard to Fidel Castro and Cuba.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have acted like kids...refusing to talk to people with whom they disagree on occasions...

...mostly, in my opinion, because possible loss of votes means more than doing what is right...and actually leading rather than looking at which way the crowd is running and then running to the front of the group pretending to be leading.

This is an interesting position for you Frank. I thought you advocated the idea of letting a backwards regime like Castro's die on the vine, rather than confronting them? Surely you're not suggesting we assist in propping him up?

Personally, I think our anti-aggression agreement with the Soviets dissolved with the Soviet Union... and I can't imagine Russia giving two ****'s about what happens in Cuba anymore. Unfortunately for Cuba; that means no one does. I'd like to see an anti-Castro movement gain some steam, so we could take advantage and squash the bastard once and for all. Within a generation or so; Cuba would become a favorite tourism spot and likely live happily ever after. Their ongoing suffering is a product of a cold war that no longer exists. Pity, they should be left out in the cold.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not refusing to open dialogue with Iran because of how women are treated or because of Islam in general, right? So maybe there is more to what Friedman had to say.

Probably this is more akin to why we have done what we have done with regard to Fidel Castro and Cuba.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have acted like kids...refusing to talk to people with whom they disagree on occasions...

...mostly, in my opinion, because possible loss of votes means more than doing what is right...and actually leading rather than looking at which way the crowd is running and then running to the front of the group pretending to be leading.
This is an interesting position for you Frank. I thought you advocated the idea of letting a backwards regime like Castro's die on the vine, rather than confronting them? Surely you're not suggesting we assist in propping him up?

Personally, I think our anti-aggression agreement with the Soviets dissolved with the Soviet Union... and I can't imagine Russia giving two ****'s about what happens in Cuba anymore. Unfortunately for Cuba; that means no one does. I'd like to see an anti-Castro movement gain some steam, so we could take advantage and squash the bastard once and for all. Within a generation or so; Cuba would become a favorite tourism spot and likely live happily ever after. Their ongoing suffering is a product of a cold war that no longer exists. Pity, they should be left out in the cold.

I should have been a favorite tourism spot right along...and would have been if we hadn't acted like a bunch of children in our dealings with Castro.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I should have been a favorite tourism spot right along...and would have been if we hadn't acted like a bunch of children in our dealings with Castro.

Please be clearer. Are you suggesting the United States should have ended all sanctions against Cuba? If so when? Should we do the same with North Korea? At what point do you advocate not assisting dictators who hold their position by standing on the necks of their citizenry?

At what point does the sovereignty of people outweigh the sovereignty of their oppressors?

It's no secret that the man with the biggest gun rules. Shouldn't that man, invariably, be the elected representative of the people? Don't people have an inherent right to self-determination and in every instance they do not, are they not, in fact, victims of oppression?

Now I'm no fan of sanctions myself; I believe in far more direct measures. Millions have died in the last couple decades from supposedly "peaceful" sanctions but to what effect? Has Castro himself suffered? How about Kim Jong Il? Did Saddam suffer from our sanctions in the 90's? No, no and no. Instead; we peacefully caused the death of millions of poor people. Does anyone think the Mullahs or Ahmadinejad are likely to suffer from sanctions against Iran?

So what do we do? Do we turn the blind eye to the plight of the half the planet's inhabitants? Has that ever deterred a would-be conqueror? Do we become isolationists, build a Great Wall, let the world go to hell, and hope they don't come knocking on our door?

Or is it time for a leader who has the courage to admit our sins of the past, and endeavor to correct the problems that face us all? Imagine an American President with the courage to list our every debacle in a massive apology to the citizens of the world followed by a proclamation to assist all in attaining the freedom of self determination that is, in a just world, every person's birth right. Could this buy us the credibility we need? I'd like to think so. But; what good is an apology if we continue to turn the blind eye to tyranny?

The M.A.D factor of mutually assured destruction prevented us from directly opposing our archenemies, the Soviet Union. Sadly, instead of finding a way to impress the importance of resistance to the evils of totalitarian governance; we chose to indirectly fight it by proxy by going to bed with regimes that were every bit as oppressive, just not as powerful. Now we're suffering the blowback. Considering the stakes in the cold war against the Soviets; I can not definitively say our actions weren't necessary. World domination was clearly the goal of the Soviets and who could know if our resistance by proxy isn't indeed what destroyed them? I would agree the Soviet model was subject to self-destruction from the onset; but would that have happened prior to attaining their goals? How much before?

So in retrospect; we can see that we didn't so much succeed in ending the threat of global oppression, but rather fragmented it. Some former Soviet and U.S. clients have recognized the futility in totalitarian ways, while others have simply found alternate oppressors to fill the void. Should we wait until another would be World Conqueror attains the potential to attempt the conquest? Do we believe we could survive another Cold War? Do we want to try?

Or is it time to take advantage of the fact that the world is currently without a capable would-be World Conqueror, ourselves notwithstanding? Would it not be in our own best interest to free the victims of oppression everywhere, before another such monstrosity develops? Or do we wait for the next would-be Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Tamerlane, Lenin, or Hitler to write his way into history in an ocean of blood? In today's world of high tech WMD, where millions could be exterminated in the blink of an eye, can we afford to wait for the next epic battle of wills?

The United States of America, for all its imperfections, is still at heart; a Representative Democracy. Collectively we are a people who believe in the right of self determination above and beyond all. Agreed? Successful export of such values, whether by force, by education or anything in between can only serve to benefit humankind. It matters little whether a country develops into a Representative Democracy like our own, a Constitutional Monarchy or any similar entity; the effects of popular sovereignty remain the same. He with a decent shot at a decent lot in life; is unlikely to neither strap a bomb to his chest nor gain the popularity to convince other like-attributed citizens to choose a conquest towards elimination of their own basic human rights. The success of Free Nations in relation to those of Totalitarian Governance by this point has to be considered beyond dispute.

Not only do our fellow humans deserve to enjoy their own natural right to self determination; the salvation of our species may well depend on our successful evolution towards this ideal. IMHO, the United States is in a unique position to accelerate this evolution and by virtue of its ability has a responsibility to do so not only for our own sake; but also for the sake of the balance of humankind.

0 Replies

Obill: I see by the hair on your chinny chin chin that you remember this:

Quote:

John Kennedy vowed at his inauguration: "We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Now here is your buddy in the White House:

Quote:

To build free institutions, the United States government has responsibilities. To help meet this goal, since taking office my administration has provided more than $4.6 billion for programs to support democratic change around the world -- and we have requested over $1.3 billion for these efforts in our 2006 budget. Our 2006 budget also requests $80 million for the National Endowment for Democracy -- more than double NED's budget when I took office. The reason I bring this up is I want you to understand that we have funding, but we will focus that funding to help new democracies after the elections are over.

Wow. 4.6 billion dollars over the past six years or, as it's more commonly known, one month's spending on the War in Iraq. Talk about cheap talk.

more

Quote:

The United States will continue to call upon our friends and allies across the world to help in this noble cause. And today, many nations are stepping forward with practical help. And some of the most active countries are those who have had recent experience with tyrants themselves. Hungary has established an International Center for Democratic Transition to share its experiences with emerging democracies. Lithuania is now preparing to deploy a provincial reconstruction team in Western Afghanistan. Slovakia is bringing Iraqi political leaders to their country, to show them firsthand how a nation moves from dictatorship to democracy. With the help of IRI, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia are working to -- with civil society leaders in Belarus to bring freedom to Europe's last dictatorship.

This is more like it, isn't it?

But from the same speech comes the only line that made the blogger's headlines:

Quote:

To build free institutions, all free nations have responsibilities. We know that democracies do not forment [sic] terror or invade their neighbors. Democratic societies are peaceful societies -- which is why, for the sake of peace, the world's established democracies must help the world's newest democracies succeed.

The irony was just too much to bear. But you have to hand to George, he's come a long way from sniffing at the idea of nation building. You remember, it was one of the things he ran on in the year 2000, yet here he is in 2007 building a bunch of them or pretending to.

The above quotes are from George W. Bush, President
Remarks an International Republican Institute Dinner
Renaissance Hotel, Washington, DC
May 17, 2005

Joe(He, like you, thinks things like getting people to vote for self-determination should be easy.)Nation

0 Replies

Nice collection Joe... especially the bit from Kennedy.
Now I'm not in the habit of defending George Bush, but, I defy you to show me one quote where he or I ever said it would be easy.

What does easy have to do with anything, anyway? How many died in our own internal strife to grant the rights of self determination to our own citizenry? Was throwing off the yokes of our own oppressors not a painful transition? Was our own Civil War not the bloodiest in our nation's history? Were our own women not jailed, humiliated and thoroughly oppressed before finally winning the good fight? Were any of these things easy? Alice Paul was tortured into ending a hunger strike, while serving time behind bars for, gasp, demonstrating for her right to vote? Was it easy? Was it worthwhile? Did she not embody that which makes us proud to call ourselves Americans?

It's a sad day when the relative merit of Human Rights is measured by the relative difficulty in attaining them. MLK would not have approved. Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. What happened to the giants that lived between Patrick Henry and JFK? Were their words only appropriate for American's freedom? Have their ideals been laid by the wayside and replaced by belief in hopelessness?

It won't be easy to end world hunger, either, but does that have any bearing on whether we should try?

Were Ghandi's path a walk in the park, it wouldn't be so celebrated today. Easy, has nothing to do with it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Bush tough stance on Iran holds echoes of prewar buildup on Iraq

By Tom Raum
ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 4, 2007

WASHINGTON - President Bush's tough new stance on Iran and his military buildup in the Persian Gulf recall some of the drumbeats that preceded the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
As then, the Bush administration is making allegations about Iran without providing proof.

It is suggesting Iran is sending weapons to Iraq, yet offering no evidence the supplies can be traced to Tehran. There are whispers, too, that Iranian intelligence agents were behind the recent abduction and execution of five U.S. soldiers.

Iran is the "axis of evil" country whose nuclear ambitions must be stopped. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is now Bush's primary Mideast nemesis, replacing the late Saddam Hussein.

Bush's efforts to rally public support behind his harder line on Iran have many lawmakers and some from the intelligence and defense world wondering if it is a prelude to military activity.

"We are not responsibly in the region if we don't deal with them," said Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va. "And the situation that we have right now where we continue to talk only about the military side - again, it's half a strategy," he told "Fox News Sunday."

Bush insists he has no plans to invade Iran, only to protect U.S. troops in Iraq.

But in recent days:

Bush raised the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf to its highest level since 2003 by ordering a second aircraft carrier strike group to the region.

The administration confirmed that Bush has authorized the military to kill or capture Iranian agents who are plotting attacks on U.S. forces.

The administration has armed Iran's Arab neighbors with Patriot missiles. The Pentagon halted sales of spare parts from the its recently retired F-14 fighter jet fleet because of concerns they could be transferred to Iran.

Administration critics suggest the White House is exaggerating Tehran's ties to attacks inside Iraq to justify a possible future military assault - just as it manipulated prewar intelligence to build its case for its 2003 invasion of Iraq, they claim.

"He again is convinced that he's on the side of right, fighting against the forces of evil, expressing this somewhat oversimplified view of the world he has," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy analyst for the Brookings Institution and an adviser to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. "He's doing what he thinks is right to show resoluteness."

Bush's saber-rattling - rather than reaching out to Iran and Syria diplomatically as recommended by the Iraq Study group and many in Congress - is a risky strategy. Many national security professionals suggest this approach could lead to wider conflict.

If conditions continue to deteriorate in Iraq, "the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large," Zbigniew Brezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Bush is betting he can help prop up the shaky government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and stop a supply line of weapons and fighters into Iraq.

It's a big bet.

Iran has denied accusations it is supplying weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq. But an official assessment of Iraq by U.S. intelligence agencies said Iran was providing lethal support to select Shiite groups.

Still, the National Intelligence Estimate released Friday said "outside actors" such as Iran and Syria are "not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability" in Iraq.

Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, said the declassified public document "does not adequately reflect" the degree of concern in nearby Sunni nations about Shiite-run Iran's meddling in Iraq. He disputed suggestions that Bush has overemphasized Iran's role.

In his Iraq speech to the nation last month, Bush said the U.S. would "seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced training and weaponry to our enemies in Iraq," citing Iran and Syria.

Critics of Bush's harder line on Iran fall into two camps: those who worry his recent strong talk might lead to a military conflict and those who claim he should have gotten tough earlier.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, for instance, has criticized what he suggests is previous indifference to the Iranian threat.

"In order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on the table," Edwards says in a hint at possible military action. The vice presidential nominee in 2004 has called for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

For now, time appears to favor Iran, says Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Even if the United States and Iraq's Shiite-led government can bring stability, "Iran must now feel it can outwait the U.S., exploit U.S. unpopularity in many Shiite areas, and has every reason to be opportunistic.

"Iran wins to some degree even if it does not exploit the situation. A Shiite-dominated Iraq is going to need Iranian help and support for years to come."

Source

0 Replies

Walter, What is ironic about Bush's charge against Iraq is the news report in this morning's San Jose Mercury news about how the US has armed al Sadr's militia - the anti-American group that has been warring with our troops. Betcha dollars to donuts nobody puts two plus two together to show how Bush has screwed up almost everything he's done in his war on Iraq and his lack in diplomacy - both in and out of the US.

There's another article in today's paper about how the ground troops are saying any surge will not help in Iraq.

0 Replies

Bush escalates war against Sunnis -- al-Sadr wins again!
By Nicolas J S Davies
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Jan 17, 2007, 00:46

Email this article
Printer friendly page

Like its predecessors, the new American campaign in Baghdad is billed as an effort to "restore security," targeting both Sunni resistance and Shiite militias. In reality, even George Bush is not reckless enough to open a second urban combat front against the Mehdi Army in Sadr City. Instead, the U.S. escalation plan perpetuates the failed policy of taking on the Sunnis first and leaving the Shiite opposition for later. This can only continue to strengthen Muqtada al-Sadr and Shiite opposition to the U.S. occupation.

0 Replies

Well, things are grinding along. Reports that Saudi Arabia is finally figuring out that everything in the Middle East is going Iran's way.

By that I mean that it's to the advantage of Iran that there be
1)continued conflict between Palestinian Hamas and Israel, Palestinian Fatah and Israel and even conflicts between Hamas and Fatah themselves,
2) a continued rebuildup of Hizzbollah on the Southern Lebanon border, 3) protracted demonstrations against the present and not-so-friendly-to Iran Lebanese government and,
of course,
4) the uber-violence leading to civil war in Iraq.

The Saudis are engaging in talks with both Fatah and Hamas. That doesn't sound like much until you realize that the Saudis almost NEVER engage in transparent talks, (diplo-speak for talks which are public knowledge.) They much prefer working behind the scenery, but Iran's growing influence and the violence spiraling out of control in Iraq has finally gotten their attention.

Whether George and his hunting buddies see this as a good thing is another matter.

Joe(Well, it wasn't our idea so it can't be good)Nation

0 Replies

Some views of Iran you might want to see. It is possible that all that beauty might be destroyed in the near future.
.
http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html

0 Replies

I was hoping I wasn't going to win this bet, but this morning all three major newspapers, NYT, LAtimes and the Washpost either lead or stuff news that clear evidence of Iran supplying Shi'a militias, and only Shi'as militia's, with armor piercing bomb material.

George will be on the air TODAY with the accusation. (It's true by the way.) Also he will tie in AL Queda to Iran because they are holding two guys under house arrest along with several others suspected of being in cahoots with Al Queda.

He will attempt to make it look as if Iran is helping Al Queda by holding the suspects...

Quote:

part of an argument crafted to activate UN resolutions punishable by sanctions and the use of force. This weekend's speech will portray Iran as "a terror-producing country, instead of an oil-producing country," and it's paired with a sales effort to European diplomats. Um.

Joe(the quote is from Slate's Today's Papers.)Nation

0 Replies

"War is the last option." Anybody wanna bet?

0 Replies

So this is curious. There was a briefing, not an announcement by GWBush, and no one at the briefing, a military one in Baghdad, gave their names, nor were any reporters allowed to take pictures of the briefing's subject - the weapons-- nor of anything else.

Supposedly it was only announced so that the Iraqi government could say something about the Iranian interference. The result thus far has been that the Iraqis have said 'Yeah, we know about Iran and the weapons coming in from there. So?"

Joe(It not like weapons aren't arriving from all points of the compass)Nation

0 Replies

The USA has declared war on Iran and Syria

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know