Bush Say's Next Stop Iran

[MeChMAN]

we definatly need to do something about iran.... they are funding the terrorists....... if there was draft, the need was that dire i would sign up most likely

Saudi Arabia also funds the terrorists but I guess everyone forgot about that country oh and what happened to Osama, have we just stopped looking or what I thought Bush always finished what he started?

 

[ConservativeShane]

God forbid that some other country should gain nuclear power. Many people think that we have the power to dictate another nation's power and policies just because we are the most powerful on earth. Since Bush is already under the illusion that he is unstoppable because of god then he feels that whatever he does is right and just.

We are the most powerful nation on earth, and therefor can do whatever we want. Oh, and thats "God" with a Capitol "G" (other than being a proper noun, He's God.)

 

[shuamort]

If Iran is invaded, you will have to be prepared for the first time since Vietnam - the concept of defeat. This time the UK will not help you - sorry.

Sorry to harsh your buzz here..... but....
Iran is a sponsor of terrorism and should realise it must not obstruct progress towards Middle East peace, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has said.

His words to MPs come after President George Bush branded Iran "the world's primary state sponsor of terror".

Mr Blair stressed the importance of the European Union's talks with Tehran over its nuclear activities and said it was important it fulfilled its obligations.

Iran says its nuclear programme is aimed at generating electricity.

I think Bush's lap dog, I mean Tony Blair, is readying up a fight with Parliament to get involved in Iran. Parliament didn't let him off easy and there are still calls for his impeachment.

Although the Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru and the Greens opposed the war - with both the nationalist parties now calling for Tony Blair's impeachment - the main mantle of opposition to the war in parliament fell to the Lib Dems, who expect to reap an electoral reward at the next general election.

 

[mixedmedia]

The arrogance involved in the determination of whether we should now start blowing up people's homes in Iran or not makes me feel ill.
Who they hell do we think we are?
Because we have now attacked two countries in the middle east/asia have we become immune to the reality of our own bullying, arrogance & aggression? So soon? Now it's just a matter of whether it makes sense strategically?
The people of Iran are sophisticated, modern, well-educated people who REALLY value human rights & dignity because it is denied to most of them. How are we to appeal to the sentiment for justice of the average citizen of a country if we go in and start killing them? The leaders of these countries, those responsible for our "noble aggression" do not die. They hide or are caught & go to cushy prisons to write their memoirs & drink cappucino. Meanwhile the citizens are left to deal with what is left behind & the slow disenchantment of the Americans as we look for other "tyrants" to displace. How do you suppose a woman still living under the burkha & male religious domination in Afghanistan feels about America's promises while observing our behavior in Iraq & now our overtures about Iran?
American egotism obviously knows no bounds. Iran needs us like they need a plague. Get over yourselves.

 

[globalvision]

shuamort, can i just check you said that Tony Blair, is readying up a fight with Parliament to get involved in Iran

do you mean that the british government is preparing for an active millitary campaing in Iran. i hope that maybe i misread you.

if i did understand you correctly, you honestly have no idea about british politics. Blair has no chance to invade iran. Blair may be bush's lap dog, but i dont think thats how he wants to be seen. im pretty sure that what he wants is to be a bridge between america and europe and his goal has been to create peace in the middle east. which maybe a bit big headed of him.

i do not believe america will use millitary force in iran, unless bush goes completly MAD. iran is a much bigger fish then Iraq, and casulties would be extensive of any such campaign. thats not to say its not possible. the american army is not designed for large scale invasions, Iraq was a serious stretch. american power relies heavily on technology rather then massive material power of the old days.

 

[Pacridge]

The arrogance involved in the determination of whether we should now start blowing up people's homes in Iran or not makes me feel ill.
Who they hell do we think we are?
Because we have now attacked two countries in the middle east/asia have we become immune to the reality of our own bullying, arrogance & aggression? So soon? Now it's just a matter of whether it makes sense strategically?
The people of Iran are sophisticated, modern, well-educated people who REALLY value human rights & dignity because it is denied to most of them. How are we to appeal to the sentiment for justice of the average citizen of a country if we go in and start killing them? The leaders of these countries, those responsible for our "noble aggression" do not die. They hide or are caught & go to cushy prisons to write their memoirs & drink cappucino. Meanwhile the citizens are left to deal with what is left behind & the slow disenchantment of the Americans as we look for other "tyrants" to displace. How do you suppose a woman still living under the burkha & male religious domination in Afghanistan feels about America's promises while observing our behavior in Iraq & now our overtures about Iran?
American egotism obviously knows no bounds. Iran needs us like they need a plague. Get over yourselves.

A lot of what you're saying here I agree with. We have become this bully nation. I read a post on here, don't know if it was this thread or another, that said "We're the most powerful nation on earth- we can do whatever we want." Pretty damn obscene thinking in a many ways. And I agree with your assessment that the people of Iran our a cultured people that do value life. But I don't think there's any escaping the fact the their government is trying to get a nuclear weapon. And I think, just as the 9-11 report exposed, their government sponsors terrorism. All that coupled with the fact that their government really dislikes the west. I think there's a need to take some action.

Now all that being said I'm very concerned that Bush and his diplomatic team are begging out of any all talks with Iran. They're simply leaving that all to the Europeans. There's a lot of talk a bound that the reason they're doing that is so they can say "see those guy's tried to talk to them, talking doesn't work, we're America, we don't talk we take action." If that is indeed what Bush's up to then shame on him.

So I would like to see us get involved in these talks and see if negotiations can't resolve the issues. But I do think there are issues. A lot of those issues may have been created by our actions around the world. Doesn't mean those issues don't exists.

So I guess what I'm asking is what is your solution? Or do you even think there needs to be a solution?

 

[shuamort]

That's exactly what I'm saying Globalvision.

This is from today's Scotsman:

Blair moves towards Bush's hard line on Iran

TONY Blair yesterday moved towards the hawkish United States position on Iran, jangling nerves among Labour MPs and peace campaigners fearful of fresh conflict in the Middle East.

Appearing before a committee of senior MPs in London, the Prime Minister said there was "no doubt" that the Iranian government backed international terrorism and warned the regime in Tehran not to stand in the way of a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Anti-war activists and some European diplomats fear that the US, following the re-election of George Bush as president, is gearing up for a confrontation with Iran over its embryonic nuclear programme. Reports earlier this year suggested US special forces had already been in Iran to identify possible targets for US or Israeli air strikes.

Blair is positioning himself to be united with the US again and the US's position is leaning towards another invasion.

Here's another article:

British MPs uncertain about Blair's Iran policy

LONDON, Feb 6 (IranMania) - Backbench MPs who opposed the Iraq war, are now expressing fears that Prime Minister Tony Blair will drag Britain into supporting US military adventurism in Iran.

And a third that's really damning:

2/9/05
Blair refuses to rule out joining any US action against Iran
London, Feb 9, IRNA -- Prime Minister Tony Blair Wednesday refused to categorically rule out that he would support US President George W. Bush in any military adventurism against Iran, but said that he believed the nuclear dispute could be pursued by diplomacy.

Here's a fourth:

Alluding to the possibility of U.S. military action on Iran, Blair was asked if anybody would believe him were he to tell Parliament that such action was warranted because Tehran had weapons of mass destruction.

He replied: "I'm not saying that and, secondly, it depends what the evidence base is."

You can't get much less committal than that.

And according to my Magic 8 Ball: "All signs point to yes".

This is all foreplay before the war. Blair is being purposefully ambiguous as much as Bush and Rice have been about ruling out military actions in Iran.

 

[globalvision]

i dont think that blair is seriousily considering invading iran. sometimes politicians use this type of foreplay to put pressure on governments. this could be a method to entice iran to comply with international demands and participate in international negotiations. america has history in iran with the previous shar which led to the current form of government. they may and are likely to have millitary targets from which they can attack using cruise missiles. an invasion is pretty much out of the question though. any attack on iran would be the last resort of a desperate and failing president. i dont think bush and blair are that stupid. the people of both countries are unlikely to support any Major action.

 

[shuamort]

Back to this side of the pond (with Condi Rice still on that side of the pond)...

Let the vague threats begin today!!!

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday that Iran must live up to its international obligations to halt its nuclear program or "the next steps are in the offing."

"And I think everybody understands what the 'next steps' mean," Rice told reporters after a meeting with NATO foreign ministers and European Union officials.

Of course, that dialogue is probably in reference to this which was said on Monday:

Iran's top nuclear negotiator says Iran will retaliate and accelerate its efforts to develop nuclear technology if attacked by the US or Israel.
Hassan Rohani told Reuters news agency there was nothing the West could do that would persuade Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.

Go back a couple more days and you'll see this:

"Diplomacy can work" in resolving tensions over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, she said after talks with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

So, diplomacy has, in half of a week, been brought down to ultimata. Hooray.

Of course, take this back 4 and a half years. What did Bush say?

During a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore on Oct. 11, 2000, in Winston-Salem, N.C., Bush said: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."

Here comes nation building exercise number three.

 

[Hoot]

Ah, that Demon Alcohol-

Oh demon alcohol,
Sad memories I cannot recall,
Who thought I would say,
Damn it all and blow it all,
Oh demon alcohol,
Memories I cannot recall,
Who thought I would fall a slave to demon alcohol.

Barley wine pink gin,
He’ll drink anything,
Port, pernod or tequila,
Rum, scotch, vodka on the rocks,
As long as all his troubles disappeared.

​

Ray can really say it all at times. Jack, neat please, while I enjoy a Cohiba Siglo and watch the sunset.

​

Wow, Pacridge! I'm impressed! LOL
Mr. Ray Davies...the single greatest song writer of the 20th century. IMO
Can you believe I have all their albums?!
I've seen them 3 times, plus Ray and Dave both individually.
I knew you were a smart guy, but now I'm really in awe! ROTFL

"This is the age of machinery,
a mechanical nightmare."
"A wonderful age of technology,
naplam, hydrogen bombs, biological warfare."
R.Davies from 20th Century Man​

 

[Pacridge]

Wow, Pacridge! I'm impressed! LOL
Mr. Ray Davies...the single greatest song writer of the 20th century. IMO
Can you believe I have all their albums?!
I've seen them 3 times, plus Ray and Dave both individually.
I knew you were a smart guy, but now I'm really in awe! ROTFL

"This is the age of machinery,
a mechanical nightmare."
"A wonderful age of technology,
naplam, hydrogen bombs, biological warfare."
R.Davies from 20th Century Man

Well I'm no Superman- Dissatisfied is what I am, but I want to be a better man. Really when we look in the papers don't we all see Robbery, violence, insanity?

Yeah, I'm a fan. I like lots of Music. As for song writers, yes the Davies are great, without a doubt some of the best. I also like Tom Petty and Jimmy Buffett. Though I've never met any of them, I have met Captain Tony, had a few beers with him in his bar. So I guess I can honestly say "I went down to Captain Tony's, to get out of the heat." My wifes a big Stones fan. So big we live on Rolling Stones Lane. In this county if you build the road- the county lets you name it. Or, in my case, let's your wife name it.

 

[alienken]

I think the Iran problem can be solve through diplomacy after our track record with Iraq and Afganistan. Finally the U.S. threats will be taken seriously.

 

[freedom69714]

Hi Aleinken ? SPELLING I hope and pray you are right but I think they are to STUPID or just don't care after all they have to PROVE their MAME HOOD


PEACE OUT
FREEDOM 69

 

[GarzaUK]

Firstly Blair won't send British troops to Iran, we don't have anymore left. Plus it would mean political suicide for him since what has happened it Iraq, he will probably support the US like the big suck up as he is, but take a back seat to a war on Iran.

Some Republicans are so eager to invade Iran lol. Well go ahead if you think your tough enough, no skin off our nose when you get beat and you will.

Iran is speeding up its nuclear weapons programme because the US THREATNED the nation. I don't know about you but if someone like Mike Tyson started to pick a fight with me, I wont boxing gloves, Id want a baseball bat (and earmuffs). You see what I'm getting at.

That is exactly was North Korea has done, who has admitted HAS nuclear weapons, not developing them. I don't know about you, but it seems that North Korea is the biggest threat not Iran. But I suppose the US has always liked soft targets like Iraq.

Right now the majority of the Iranians hate their leaders, but if you attack them you will unite them all for one hell of a jihad party! (Bring your own beer and bombs)

No offense, but sometimes I'm in awe in how some americans can be so ignorant about the world.

 

[shuamort]

Firstly Blair won't send British troops to Iran, we don't have anymore left. Plus it would mean political suicide for him since what has happened it Iraq, he will probably support the US like the big suck up as he is, but take a back seat to a war on Iran.

Well, the troops he wants to pull out of Iraq could go right to the neighbors.

Mr Blair said he wanted UK troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible - but it depended on Iraqi security capability.
(Snip)
He said: "Over the next few weeks as the picture emerges more clearly and we get a new Iraqi government come into being, I hope we can then set out for people exactly what we then think is the way forward for the Iraqi-isation of security and outreach to some of the Sunni areas."
Snip
He did not promise any firm date for withdrawing troops, although he said they would leave if the Iraqi Government wanted.

But with PDRK's announcement today, who knows what the next target will be. And I am strongly (and disappointedly) expecting a "next".

 

[Pacridge]

No offense, but sometimes I'm in awe in how some americans can be so ignorant about the world.

We sure have taken a strange turn. We're good. We're great. We're the greatest. Now it seems there are those who somehow believe we indeed prefect, incapable of making mistakes. There's a certain lack of humility to it all. Talking to some people in this country is amazing. The idea that we don't ever over or under think problems, it's really quite amazing.

It reminds me of the "Space Pen." When I was younger the space program was and in full swing. We were at odds with and in competition with the Russian's in a "space race." Getting a man on the moon was the golden ring of sorts. Both countries had placed men in orbit, the Russians beating the US by some time. While involved with this "space race" an issue that NASA encountered was the pens they were using, it turns out, wouldn't write in zero gravity. They could find one that would. Engineers were put to work developing a pen the would write in space, zero gravity and other extreme conditions. NASA invested a lot of time and money (some say in the neighborhood of $3.5 million, 1960's $'s) in development. After several months a pen was produced that was really very remarkable. It could write on almost any surface, in very extreme temperatures and yes, in zero gravity. Given a good surface it could even write underwater. So after months of work and a lot of cash. American ingenuity paid off, the "space pen" was born. The Russians? Used a pencil.

 

[shuamort]

The Russians? Used a pencil.

Urban legend that.

The lesson of this anecdote is a valid one, that we sometimes expend a great deal of time, effort, and money to create a "high-tech" solution to a problem, when a perfectly good, cheap, and simple solution is right before our eyes. The anecdote offered above isn't a real example of this syndrome, however. Fisher did ultimately develop a pressurized pen for use by NASA astronauts (now known as the famous "Fisher Space Pen"), but both American and Soviet space missions initially used pencils, NASA did not seek out Fisher and ask them to develop a "space pen," Fisher did not charge NASA for the cost of developing the pen, and the Fisher pen was eventually used by both American and Soviet astronauts.

Here's how Fisher themselves described it:

NASA never asked Paul C. Fisher to produce a pen. When the astronauts began to fly, like the Russians, they used pencils, but the leads sometimes broke and became a hazard by floating in the [capsule's] atmosphere where there was no gravity. They could float into an eye or nose or cause a short in an electrical device. In addition, both the lead and the wood of the pencil could burn rapidly in the pure oxygen atmosphere. Paul Fisher realized the astronauts needed a safer and more dependable writing instrument, so in July 1965 he developed the pressurized ball pen, with its ink enclosed in a sealed, pressurized ink cartridge. Fisher sent the first samples to Dr. Robert Gilruth, Director of the Houston Space Center. The pens were all metal except for the ink, which had a flash point above 200°C. The sample Space Pens were thoroughly tested by NASA. They passed all the tests and have been used ever since on all manned space flights, American and Russian. All research and developement costs were paid by Paul Fisher. No development costs have ever been charged to the government.

Because of the fire in Apollo 1, in which three Astronauts died, NASA required a writing instrument that would not burn in a 100% oxygen atmosphere. It also had to work in the extreme conditions of outer space:
In a vacuum.
With no gravity.
In hot temperatures of +150°C in sunlight and also in the cold shadows of space where the temperatures drop to -120°C
(NASA tested the pressurized Space Pens at -50°C, but because of the residential [sic] heat in the pen it also writes for many minutes in the cold shadows.)

Fisher spent over one million dollars in trying to perfect the ball point pen before he made his first successful pressurized pens in 1965. Samples were immediately sent to Dr. Robert Gilruth, Manager of the Houston Space Center, where they were thoroughly tested and approved for use in Space in September 1965. In December 1967 he sold 400 Fisher Space Pens to NASA for $2.95 each.

Lead pencils were used on all Mercury and Gemini space flights and all Russian space flights prior to 1968. Fisher Space Pens are more dependable than lead pencils and cannot create the hazard of a broken piece of lead floating through the gravity-less atmosphere.

 

[Pacridge]

Urban legend that.

I stand corrected. Guess everything we learn from our fathers may not be 100% accurate 100% of the time.

 

[Hoot]

I think the Iran problem can be solve through diplomacy after our track record with Iraq and Afganistan. Finally the U.S. threats will be taken seriously.

I don't know about diplomacy? It might be too late?

Someone reported Bush was walking around the White House wearing his Ipod...listening to Beach Boys, and singing....

"Bomb...bomb...bomb...
Bomb...bomb Iran

Bomb...bomb...bomb...
Bomb....bomb.....Bomb Iran......just like Afghanistan
Cause I'm the man...

Yeah, I'm the man who got Saddam
And now I'm gonna bomb Iran
Bomb Iran...bomb..bomb....bomb...bomb...Iran"

 

[mixedmedia]

So I guess what I'm asking is what is your solution? Or do you even think there needs to be a solution?

Somehow I missed you asking me this question, Pac. I lose track easily if I'm contributing to more than two threads at a time. I agree with you & would like to expand on a couple of your observations.

I don't have a solution, per se, other than levity. Patience. Wisdom. Compassion. I am certainly no world leader.

But what would Buddha do?

I think that Americans are being manipulated into thinking Iran is a new & compelling threat & that their nuclear program was hidden & not known to the world. I saw the Iranian ambassador interviewed about their nuclear program before 9/11 or soon after, can't quite remember, but it was back when, apparently, no one cared much about Iran's nuclear program (at that time, it turns out, there were other fish to fry). But he made the rational claim that Iran is a nation between Pakistan & India &, at that time, Saddam Hussein and that developing nuclear weapons was in the interests of their national security. Do Americans have the right to disagree with that claim while we are developing a nuclear bunker buster that can level a small mountain? While Pakistan stands guilty, sans penalty, for sharing nuclear information w/ North Korea & Libya? While American soldiers were sent to Iraq to disarm a country that it turns out was not armed?

I think America needs to slow down and read a few books. Do some homework. CNN & FOX are not giving America the information its citizens need to make an informed opinion on what needs to be done in Iran. Where was the American news media & Americans themselves when the theocrats in Iran cancelled the nominations of over 2000 progressive candidates for the Iranian parliament last year? How many Americans know that the revolution in Iran was started in part by progressives, young socialists, many of whom were imprisoned & killed after the fundamentalists usurped the cause? Against a corrupt, American-backed shah I might add. How many Americans are supporting Iranian human rights activist & Nobel Peace Prize winner, Shirin Ebadi, in her fight to get her memoir published in the US? Caught any good Iranian films, lately? They are among the most respected in the world these days. How many Americans are aware of Iran's oil resources & can say with complete assurance that those resources will not be measured against the toll of human lives if there were a war? Read the book Reading Lolita in Tehran. When you really know about people, & experience their reality through their words, it becomes much harder to consider killing them in the name of any cause. And I think that's where we need to be to even take the first step toward helping them become a free society.

Okay, I'm rambling, sorry, I tend to do that. My point essentially is, that if America were able to take a vacation from being so "American" they would see that preeminent power can be narcotic after a few generations. We rely too heavily on American institutions that are centered around maintaining a status quo, consumer-driven American culture for our information & I think it desensitizes us to the bigger realities - it makes us intellectually lazy. Did you know that, per capita, more Palestinian children go on to college after primary education than American children?

But what we citizens in the 21st century have that generations before us did not is access to all the information we need, at our fingertips literally, via the internet. And if you're wary of American partisanship in the media, as I certainly am, then you can read the newspapers of virtually any country in the world on the internet. Not to mention university & government records & online libraries. There's also your community libraries where you can choose to read about history or sociology or the culture of others instead of the latest bestseller. How many Americans know about the rich contributions to history & civilization made by the Persians? Sorry, there I go again.

If the America enters into another pre-emptive, illegitimate war & the best Americans can do to react is buy more magnetic ribbons for the backs of their giant automobiles, then it bodes poorly for the American legacy. Sorry if I sound preachy, but it is important to me. I am patriot, I believe that America & democracy stand for important human values , & my heart says that it needs to be important to every American.