Will Bush Bomb Iran
- Thread starter Mcluhan
- Start date
Come on papa, any failure of the Bushies and anyone else implicated in his evil is a great cause for celebration. Picture the parties that will break out if Bush screws up and the would gets nuked. (sort of like the parties in some parts of the world after 9/11 I guess)
...I agree Irans connections with both Russia and Cina bode very ill for any attack on Iran. Plus the Shia's very ingrained philosophy of sacrifice as demonstrated in the Iran -Iraq war further should give hesitation to those who would stir up the hornets nest.
However, I am not the President , Bush is, and I believe him and his advisors are just stupid enough to underestimate the Iranians, because he is an ignorant, incurious, spoiled man.
He may just believe that either the US or Isreal or both could attack Iran and
contain any response. While his masters might just be hoping for an escalation into a wider war, an excuse to fully mobilize and have the war profiteers steal even more of our money.
However, I am not the President , Bush is, and I believe him and his advisors are just stupid enough to underestimate the Iranians, because he is an ignorant, incurious, spoiled man.
He may just believe that either the US or Isreal or both could attack Iran and
contain any response. While his masters might just be hoping for an escalation into a wider war, an excuse to fully mobilize and have the war profiteers steal even more of our money.
It's all about priorities
Just look at New Orleans post Katrina. The pitiful little that has been done down there to date is a National DISGRACE and an indictment as to the warped sense of priorities the Team 'w' has exhibited to date!.......
Team 'w' has WASTED BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS in an needless war in Iraq based on lies to feed the greed of war profiteers. Think of what that money could have accomplished were it given to more 'people friendly' businesses in rebuilding the USA.
It all comes down to where do you want to spend your money and in what proportions. On the Defense Industry, or rebuilding your country. Cheney/Dubya give it all to their pals in the MIC. The massive amount of money spent in the US Defense Budget today is OBSCENE! That money could be better spent on rebuilding crumbling infrastructure, cities, providing universal Health Care, fixing Social Security, a Manhattan Style project on alternative energy sources, paying down the National Debt, etc. In this case the country would be better off and 'other businesses' besides just the Defense Indusry would benefit.bbking said:
Just look at New Orleans post Katrina. The pitiful little that has been done down there to date is a National DISGRACE and an indictment as to the warped sense of priorities the Team 'w' has exhibited to date!.......
Team 'w' has WASTED BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS in an needless war in Iraq based on lies to feed the greed of war profiteers. Think of what that money could have accomplished were it given to more 'people friendly' businesses in rebuilding the USA.
No AngrySmurf, just a fact. I think Hezbollah is a fuck of a group.papasmerf said:
However, I can understand why they're doing what they're doing.
To help their fellow Arab brothers out, much like America helps Israel.
But Israel's tactics were pretty clear, bomb the fuck certain parts of southern Lebanon and hope people will resent and repel anything Hezbollah.
It...did...not...work.
In fact, people praised them and that was very surprising.
...the US will bomb Iran because at the centre of the Neo-Con philosophy
is that the US has a overwhelimg military advantage over the rest of the world that should be utilized. Iran or more specifically the Iranian President is challenging that.So the options are repudiate your basic premises or seek to
validate them. In time they will be forced to change, but that time is not yet.
I am expecting an air attack perhaps followed by a quick amphibious landing, with the intention of getting to the Nuclear sites.
is that the US has a overwhelimg military advantage over the rest of the world that should be utilized. Iran or more specifically the Iranian President is challenging that.So the options are repudiate your basic premises or seek to
validate them. In time they will be forced to change, but that time is not yet.
I am expecting an air attack perhaps followed by a quick amphibious landing, with the intention of getting to the Nuclear sites.
Bush Is About to Attack Iran
Why Can't Americans See it?
by Paul Craig Roberts January 27, 2007
The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up about the Bush Regime's determination to escalate the war in Iraq. A massive protest demonstration is occurring in Washington DC today, and Congress is expressing its disagreement with Bush's decision to intensify the war in Iraq.
This is all to the good. However, it misses the real issue – the Bush Regime's looming attack on Iran.
Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush's planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven't caught on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate world wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime's cross hairs. But Congress and the Media – and the demonstration in Washington – are focused on Iraq.
What can be done to bring American awareness up to the standard of the rest of the world?
In Davos, Switzerland, the meeting of the World Economic Forum, a conference where economic globalism issues are discussed, opened January 24 with a discussion of Bush's planned attack on Iran. The Secretary General of the League of Arab States and bankers and businessmen from such US allies as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all warned of the coming attack and its catastrophic consequences for the Middle East and the world.
Writing for Global Research, General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armies, forecasted an American nuclear attack on Iran by the end of April. General Ivashov presented the neoconservative reasoning that is the basis for the attack and concluded that the world's protests cannot stop the US attack on Iran.
There will be shock and indignation, General Ivashov concludes, but the US will get away with it. He writes:
"Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc.... The probability of a US aggression against Iran is extremely high. It does remain unclear, though, whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war. It may take a provocation to eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the US targets including military bases). The scale of the provocation may be comparable to the 9/11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say 'Yes' to the US president."
The Bush Regime has made it clear that it is convinced that Bush already has the authority to attack Iran. The Regime argues that the authority is part of Bush's commander-in-chief powers. Congress has authorized the war in Iraq, and Bush's recent public statements have shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi insurgency from al-Qaeda to Iran. Iran, Bush has declared, is killing US troops in Iraq. Thus, Iran is covered under the authorization for the war in Iraq.
Both Bush and Cheney have made it clear in public statements that they will ignore any congressional opposition to their war plans. For example, CBS News reported (Jan. 25) that Cheney said that a congressional resolution against escalating the war in Iraq "won't stop us." According to the Associated Press, Bush dismissed congressional disapproval with his statement, "I'm the decision-maker."
Everything is in place for an attack on Iran. Two aircraft carrier attack forces are deployed to the Persian Gulf, US attack aircraft have been moved to Turkey and other countries on Iran's borders, Patriot anti-missile defense systems are being moved to the Middle East to protect oil facilities and US bases from retaliation from Iranian missiles, and growing reams of disinformation alleging Iran's responsibility for the insurgency in Iraq are being fed to the gullible US media.
General Ivashof and everyone in the Middle East and at the Davos globalization conference in Europe understands the Bush Regime's agenda.
Why cannot Americans understand?
Why hasn't Congress told Bush and Cheney that they will both be instantly impeached if they initiate a wider war?
Why Can't Americans See it?
by Paul Craig Roberts January 27, 2007
The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up about the Bush Regime's determination to escalate the war in Iraq. A massive protest demonstration is occurring in Washington DC today, and Congress is expressing its disagreement with Bush's decision to intensify the war in Iraq.
This is all to the good. However, it misses the real issue – the Bush Regime's looming attack on Iran.
Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush's planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven't caught on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate world wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime's cross hairs. But Congress and the Media – and the demonstration in Washington – are focused on Iraq.
What can be done to bring American awareness up to the standard of the rest of the world?
In Davos, Switzerland, the meeting of the World Economic Forum, a conference where economic globalism issues are discussed, opened January 24 with a discussion of Bush's planned attack on Iran. The Secretary General of the League of Arab States and bankers and businessmen from such US allies as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all warned of the coming attack and its catastrophic consequences for the Middle East and the world.
Writing for Global Research, General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armies, forecasted an American nuclear attack on Iran by the end of April. General Ivashov presented the neoconservative reasoning that is the basis for the attack and concluded that the world's protests cannot stop the US attack on Iran.
There will be shock and indignation, General Ivashov concludes, but the US will get away with it. He writes:
"Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc.... The probability of a US aggression against Iran is extremely high. It does remain unclear, though, whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war. It may take a provocation to eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the US targets including military bases). The scale of the provocation may be comparable to the 9/11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say 'Yes' to the US president."
The Bush Regime has made it clear that it is convinced that Bush already has the authority to attack Iran. The Regime argues that the authority is part of Bush's commander-in-chief powers. Congress has authorized the war in Iraq, and Bush's recent public statements have shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi insurgency from al-Qaeda to Iran. Iran, Bush has declared, is killing US troops in Iraq. Thus, Iran is covered under the authorization for the war in Iraq.
Both Bush and Cheney have made it clear in public statements that they will ignore any congressional opposition to their war plans. For example, CBS News reported (Jan. 25) that Cheney said that a congressional resolution against escalating the war in Iraq "won't stop us." According to the Associated Press, Bush dismissed congressional disapproval with his statement, "I'm the decision-maker."
Everything is in place for an attack on Iran. Two aircraft carrier attack forces are deployed to the Persian Gulf, US attack aircraft have been moved to Turkey and other countries on Iran's borders, Patriot anti-missile defense systems are being moved to the Middle East to protect oil facilities and US bases from retaliation from Iranian missiles, and growing reams of disinformation alleging Iran's responsibility for the insurgency in Iraq are being fed to the gullible US media.
General Ivashof and everyone in the Middle East and at the Davos globalization conference in Europe understands the Bush Regime's agenda.
Why cannot Americans understand?
Why hasn't Congress told Bush and Cheney that they will both be instantly impeached if they initiate a wider war?
Why We Must Have Impeachment
Saturday, 27 January 2007
By Dave Lindorff
When impeachment hearings began for President Richard Nixon, a scant one in four Americans thought he should be impeached. During the Clinton impeachment farce, support for the president"s removal from office never topped 36 percent. Yet a Newsweek poll taken last fall found that a remarkable 51 percent of the American public felt this president should face impeachment (including 29 percent of Republicans!), and than only 44 percent opposed impeachment.
Many well-intentioned and patriotic Americans, including progressives and liberal Democrats, have expressed opposition to the idea of impeaching President Bush, arguing that it is a diversion from more important issues like ending the war in Iraq, or taking effective action on climate change.
Their concern is understandable, as these are indeed important issues, but they are wrong. Fortunately, House Judiciary Chair John Conyers, who knows this, is beginning the impeachment process next week by calling for a hearing to examine one of the president¹s crimes: abuse of power. Fortunately too, several state legislatures in places as disparate as New Mexico, Vermont and Washington, are considering passing resolutions calling on the House to initiate impeachment hearings.
There are important reasons why this president must be impeached and they include those very urgent issues that people are afraid will be shunted aside by an impeachment battle.
The key reason this president must be impeached is that his offenses against the Constitution and the nation are so serious that the very survival of Constitutional government and the separation of powers on which it is based are at risk.
Let¹s take the war in Iraq. The president clearly lied and tricked both the Congress and the American people into allowing him to invade that country. He and Vice President Dick Cheney carefully cherry-picked half-truths and known falsehoods to lay out as ³evidence² that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons and that he was in league with Osama bin Laden. His White House orchestrated a campaign to damage the reputation of an honest critic, ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had discovered that a key piece of that ³evidence² --some alleged documents from the country of Niger--had been forged, and even ³outed² Wilson¹s CIA-agent wife. These lies have led directly to the pointless deaths of nearly 3100 American men and women in uniform and to the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children. Bush also illegally pulled American troops and equipment out of Afghanistan, right at the height of a Congressionally authorized campaign to capture or kill bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization (fatally crippling that effort), and sent them to the border of Iraq in preparation for his war there.
If this president is allowed to do such things, unchallenged and unpunished, we can expect subsequent presidents to do so in the future. Indeed, many experts and members of Congress believe that Bush is getting close to repeating this criminal behavior himself, this time with an unprovoked attack on Iran. Clearly, in order to stop such abuse of presidential authority and such a second national and international disaster, Congress will have to impeach the president.
Then there¹s the so-called ³signing statements.² These are the letters--not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution--which Bush and his crony attorneys in the White House and Justice Department claim allow him to invalidate all or part of any bill passed by the Congress. Bush has used signing statements to do this over 1200 time during his presidency, for everything from refusing to accept a Congressional ban on torture to giving himself the power, in clear violation of federal law, to monitor first- class mail.
Once again, if this president is not impeached for this outrage assertion of presidential absolute power, all future presidents will feel free to do the same thing, simply ignoring acts of Congress. The Constitution is crystal clear on this matter: Article I says ³All legislative powers granted herein shall be vested in Congress of the United States," and Article II says the president ³shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.² Note that the Constitution does not say that ³some² legislative powers or ³most² legislative powers are vested in the Congress. It says ³all.² Nor does it say that the president shall execute ³some² of the laws. For Congress to let this blatant abuse of power to go unpunished would be to leave future Congresses as little more than vestigial debating societies.
Saturday, 27 January 2007
By Dave Lindorff
When impeachment hearings began for President Richard Nixon, a scant one in four Americans thought he should be impeached. During the Clinton impeachment farce, support for the president"s removal from office never topped 36 percent. Yet a Newsweek poll taken last fall found that a remarkable 51 percent of the American public felt this president should face impeachment (including 29 percent of Republicans!), and than only 44 percent opposed impeachment.
Many well-intentioned and patriotic Americans, including progressives and liberal Democrats, have expressed opposition to the idea of impeaching President Bush, arguing that it is a diversion from more important issues like ending the war in Iraq, or taking effective action on climate change.
Their concern is understandable, as these are indeed important issues, but they are wrong. Fortunately, House Judiciary Chair John Conyers, who knows this, is beginning the impeachment process next week by calling for a hearing to examine one of the president¹s crimes: abuse of power. Fortunately too, several state legislatures in places as disparate as New Mexico, Vermont and Washington, are considering passing resolutions calling on the House to initiate impeachment hearings.
There are important reasons why this president must be impeached and they include those very urgent issues that people are afraid will be shunted aside by an impeachment battle.
The key reason this president must be impeached is that his offenses against the Constitution and the nation are so serious that the very survival of Constitutional government and the separation of powers on which it is based are at risk.
Let¹s take the war in Iraq. The president clearly lied and tricked both the Congress and the American people into allowing him to invade that country. He and Vice President Dick Cheney carefully cherry-picked half-truths and known falsehoods to lay out as ³evidence² that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons and that he was in league with Osama bin Laden. His White House orchestrated a campaign to damage the reputation of an honest critic, ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had discovered that a key piece of that ³evidence² --some alleged documents from the country of Niger--had been forged, and even ³outed² Wilson¹s CIA-agent wife. These lies have led directly to the pointless deaths of nearly 3100 American men and women in uniform and to the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children. Bush also illegally pulled American troops and equipment out of Afghanistan, right at the height of a Congressionally authorized campaign to capture or kill bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization (fatally crippling that effort), and sent them to the border of Iraq in preparation for his war there.
If this president is allowed to do such things, unchallenged and unpunished, we can expect subsequent presidents to do so in the future. Indeed, many experts and members of Congress believe that Bush is getting close to repeating this criminal behavior himself, this time with an unprovoked attack on Iran. Clearly, in order to stop such abuse of presidential authority and such a second national and international disaster, Congress will have to impeach the president.
Then there¹s the so-called ³signing statements.² These are the letters--not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution--which Bush and his crony attorneys in the White House and Justice Department claim allow him to invalidate all or part of any bill passed by the Congress. Bush has used signing statements to do this over 1200 time during his presidency, for everything from refusing to accept a Congressional ban on torture to giving himself the power, in clear violation of federal law, to monitor first- class mail.
Once again, if this president is not impeached for this outrage assertion of presidential absolute power, all future presidents will feel free to do the same thing, simply ignoring acts of Congress. The Constitution is crystal clear on this matter: Article I says ³All legislative powers granted herein shall be vested in Congress of the United States," and Article II says the president ³shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.² Note that the Constitution does not say that ³some² legislative powers or ³most² legislative powers are vested in the Congress. It says ³all.² Nor does it say that the president shall execute ³some² of the laws. For Congress to let this blatant abuse of power to go unpunished would be to leave future Congresses as little more than vestigial debating societies.
The Iraq war is giving Americans jobs. The economy wasn't growing, so that was a problem, they can't have the public unemployed, it would be terrible. Its the american way of finding their citizens jobs. Then when the war is over, the soldiers go home with paychecks and stimulate the economy. Unfortunately the war isn't going the Americans way, but nobody told them to go to war, so they have nobody to blame but themselves.
So, at what point in the future will those thinking we're going to attack Iran say they were wrong...... Come to think of it I haven't seen any retractions on the US starting up the Draft or Rove being indicted.....
OTB
OTB
Well saidenduser1 said:
But that's where the problem is: taking measures against Iran is a good idea, but because of what he did in Irak, he will probably not be able to do the right thing now - no one will give him any credit no matter how good he says his actions will be.
That's a frustrating situation - and that's where Bush can be compared to any other dictator: either you let him live and do what he wants, or you remove him completely from power... what a lovely paradox!
bbk.... shhhhhhbbking said:
Don't tell them, nothing reminds American's why they dislike Democrats more than Democrats. I look forward to them squandering their two years in control of Congress revisiting history and bashing the POTUS. They were elected to change the tone and get something done, if they make no progress.......
Now all we need is another Micheal Moore movie....
OTB
Good question. I was wondering that myself.onthebottom said:
Mcluhan was the chicken little who started this thread, but it appears he's missing in action.
bbking said:
Like you do?
You remind me a lot of Mcluhan. I'm sure you would take that as a complement, but it wasn't intended.
