Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cityboi

Is the Bush administrartion trying to set up a case to go to war with Iran?

42 posts in this topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

According to president Bush, He is certain Iran is supplying weapons to fighters even if he cant find any proof. Just like he was certain Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Is he trying to set up a case to go to war with Iran? Hes lost all credibilty around the world. GOD HELP US. 2008 is not coming fast enough. We need to hurry up and get him out of office before another one of his wreckless decisions put us in deeper water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


If he attacks Iran it will be with no public support and it will completely destroy any hopes that Republicans have of winning the presidency in 2008 or gaining any seats back in congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I think this has been the neo-con's plans all along. They have 2 years left in control of the military so they are going to do everything they can to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But of course, he is trying to go to war with Iran. BUT! He doesn't have a rubberstamp Congress to get this mess through this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^But "The Decider" doesn't seem to think Congress matters on these issues. The presentation of "iranian" weapons the other day smacks of Colin Powel's presentation before the UN. Assuming the weapons did indeed come from Iran (and these weapons are widely available throughout the Middle East), there is zero evidence the Iranian government had anything to do with it.

First an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, now Iran. One wonders which nation will be our Poland.

Anyone else catch Bush's response this morning when asked why our allies continue to do business with Iran, if the Iranians are so terrible? He actually had the nerve to say, "Money trumps peace, sometimes." Of course, this was accompanied by his trademark snarky chuckle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But of course, he is trying to go to war with Iran. BUT! He doesn't have a rubberstamp Congress to get this mess through this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling if Bushie even TRIES to set up pretext to attack Iran, demonstrations will sweep this country that will make Vietnam era protests look like a kindergarten class. People in this country have had enough, and if Bushie pushes any further, he's gonna face a huge opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I thought he made it very clear five years ago in his 'axis of evil' speech. Iraq, Iran, N. Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Iran continues at its present course, I don't know that we will have much of a choice in the future. I'm not going to argue whether or not certain nations should be allowed to pursue nuclear technology, but this man has said some very fanatical things over the past year. Iran has not proven itself as a nation capable of holding the world's trust. We owe Iran nothing but skepticism.

Having said that, if Bush thinks people are going to support going to war with Iran because they are helping the Iraqi insurgents then he is a bigger moron than I thought he was. Look, I believe Iran is funding and giving weapons to them. Do I have proof? No. But I believe it. And you know what? I don't think it's worth a war with Iran over that. They hate us and we hate them. What does Bush think? That they're going to help us?????

Bush screwed this whole affair up a few years ago when he declared that Iran was part of the axis of evil. Firstly, an axis implies a shared ideology, which none of the axis countries seemed to have (except that they really hate us). But where do you go from there? How do you negotiate or even speak to a nation that you've just labeled as being evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bush administration has to find a reason to attack Iran wether its tue or not. The WMDs was the reason for the Iraq invasion. If we attack Iran expect congress to reinstate the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Iran continues at its present course, I don't know that we will have much of a choice in the future. I'm not going to argue whether or not certain nations should be allowed to pursue nuclear technology, but this man has said some very fanatical things over the past year. Iran has not proven itself as a nation capable of holding the world's trust. We owe Iran nothing but skepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links Gusterfell, especially the first one. My only point was that, at this point in the game, we have, through our actions and our words, demonstrated that Iran is our enemy. I would expect them to do whatever is possible to ensure disruption in Iraq. I do not, however, believe that this is reason enough to wage war against them. This is a mess, isn't it?

Was that Carl Sagan who said that? I loved that guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're most welcome. :thumbsup:

If I remember correctly, Carl Sagan was referring to UFOs when he said that. It certainly applies to this case, though.

As for Iran, the Bush administration is playing exactly the same game they played before the invasion of Iraq. Wild claims with minimal supporting evidence. Just like last time, there are plenty of people in the field who are disputing their accusations. Hopefully this time people are paying attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I don't know if we have "beyond a reasonable doubt" type physical evidence, finger prints, receipts, whatever, that prove Iran is supporting insurgency, but as I understand it we know that they are, as well as everyone else, really. British troops over two years ago were forbidden from attacking or interferring with openly Iran supported militias, and I believe Iran has only been more emboldened and involved since then.

Also, comments about wiping Israel off the face of the map make Iran deserve some level of skepticism, Gusterfell. At first I was outraged that western media took some translational and contextual liberties with Ahmadinejad's comments as they weren't as sensationalist as "Wipe Israel off the face of the map" or "the holocaust never happened", but he has since that time made comments that lead one to believe that is exactly what he means.

I am not in favor of a war with Iran, but mainly because it is for other people to fight, there is nothing that we can win, and Bush has used up and gone into debt as far as US political capital. The real 'problem area' is that should a war with them become necessary for some reason, we would be almost powerless to fight it after all that has transpired in the past 4 years (IMO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


As for Iran, the Bush administration is playing exactly the same game they played before the invasion of Iraq. Wild claims with minimal supporting evidence. Just like last time, there are plenty of people in the field who are disputing their accusations. Hopefully this time people are paying attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, comments about wiping Israel off the face of the map make Iran deserve some level of skepticism,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^ I don't know if we have "beyond a reasonable doubt" type physical evidence, finger prints, receipts, whatever, that prove Iran is supporting insurgency, but as I understand it we know that they are, as well as everyone else, really. British troops over two years ago were forbidden from attacking or interferring with openly Iran supported militias, and I believe Iran has only been more emboldened and involved since then.

Also, comments about wiping Israel off the face of the map make Iran deserve some level of skepticism, Gusterfell. At first I was outraged that western media took some translational and contextual liberties with Ahmadinejad's comments as they weren't as sensationalist as "Wipe Israel off the face of the map" or "the holocaust never happened", but he has since that time made comments that lead one to believe that is exactly what he means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, at first I was intrigued by the article in the Boston globe you linked to, but upon reading the 2nd page, it hints at why exactly there is no evidence of smuggling - the guards are likely doing the smuggling themselves, and then it says the British force packed up and left to prove -what- I don't understand the writer's point after that.

Your second article quotes our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as saying

"It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. This is just typical overanalyzing by the far left anti-war movement. We are no more likely to go to war with Iran than we are with Venezuela. Interestingly enough, Ahmadinejad s just as crazy as the Chavez (the Venezuelan Dictator)... ok maybe slightly less crazy. But there aren't enough troops in Iraq to hold the peace as it exists now, so what makes you think that they are going to go an invade yet another country? Our forces are over extended around the world, and I think some common sense will tell you that they don't have the ability to wage another war. I am personally tired of being the world's police while at the same time being the focus of such hatred in the Middle East. I'm all for bringing our boys home from all points around the globe.

The exception to this is if Iran starts it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.. wouldn't that just be perfect. Bush provokes Iran until Iran starts something and then we're just "defending the Vaterland" The F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, I'm willing to bend here and concede much of Bush's rhetoric is crap (because it usually is), but to say Iran is not complicit or aware of the use of their weapons in Iraq is laughable. They know and perhaps do not care would be more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I may be interpreting recent news, allusions and actions wrong then, because I can't fathom that Bush would go to war with Iran, and my comments thus far are framed around that presupposition. It would be like a man with a day to live demanding a heart transplant when his liver just failed, or in other words, I see it as utterly inconceivable. Bush just simply couldn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you on that, and I really hope someone (Dem majority maybe) can put a stop to this. This is one of those situations where I'd love to be proven wrong, but so far it all looks very familiar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with you on that, and I really hope someone (Dem majority maybe) can put a stop to this. This is one of those situations where I'd love to be proven wrong, but so far it all looks very familiar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.