State of The Union Address IRAN NEXT !!!!!

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

President Bush just basically said it. WOW vuja day all over again :eek: :rolleyes: WMD in IRAN WMD in IRAN WMD in IRAN WMD in IRAN

Here we go ....


Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror - pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium re-processing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.


[ 02-02-2005, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[Jim H]

Syria Joe, Syria. Liberate the people of Syria and you liberate TWO countries.

[LeeG]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICL E_ID=42225 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42225)

http://www.rense.com/general62/USAFplayingcatandmouse.htm

[ 02-03-2005, 02:01 AM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

[BrianW]

I thought we should have taken Syria from the begining. That would have given us an overland route from the Med. Sea. Then Turkey wouldn't have been such a stumbling block, and weapons would not have been hidden in that country.

About Iran...

Perhaps it's a bit of smoke and mirrors. After seeing the US take over and bring democracy to Afganistan and Iraq, it's possible they will consider the President words with some serious respect.

[Wild Dingo]

And this surprises you??? :rolleyes:

Its all rather elementary dear Joeboy on the mountain {as our Pommy cousins would say ;) }... me ol mate he had has always had and will always have designs on the whole mid east {yeah Donn Im still stuffin me flamin english up! but then Im Aussie so thats just to be expected tongue.gif }... no surprises just one long bloody bloodbath till he gets what he wants... Was the intention from the start... Afganistan and OBL were just his opportunity thats all. :rolleyes:

[Boomkin Joe]

Get Saudi Arabia and you have three countries.

[Victor]

It's about everything BUT Saudi Arabia. Like kicking your dog (wink wink). Esp. since his family is so tied in with them. Interesting how terrorists are never Saudi, except the guys in the planes.

[ 02-03-2005, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Victor ]

[George.]

Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror - pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. Bush is full of sh!t, as usual. North Korea is far more tyrannical and cruel to its people, who unlike Iranians are starving and cannot even flee abroad as refugees. It not only is pursuing nukes, it already has some, and the missiles to launch them. And it sponsors terror or anything else that pays - it was just demonstrated to have supplied nuclear materials to Lybia, among others.

Oh, but it has no oil...

[Alan D. Hyde]

With the difference, George, that North Koreans have not been coming over to the States and killing its citizens and their overseas guests...

Alan

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

With respect, Alan, have the Iranians?

[George.]

No, but the Saudis and Egyptians have.

Oh, but the Saudis are business partners. And the Egyptians have no oil...

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

God's word is never changing ;)

[martin schulz]

Originally posted by BrianW:
After seeing the US take over and bring democracy to Afganistan...Before this gets too gloryfied lets put this right.
The war against Afganistan was a war a couple of countries were, because of the alliance against terror - Enduring Freedom, involved. It wasn't like: the US brings democracy to Afganistan.

Then a lot of US forces left Afganistan before even elections took place. The US has 16000 soldiers in Afganistan with 2000 additional british forces. Right now the ISAF is in charge, with 8000 soldiers from 33 countries, Germany and Canada providing most of them). The ISAF was under NATO command and is since August under EUROCORPS command. Afganistan is about 50% bigger than Iraq but has less people. The situation is still very unstable because warlords still control most areas outside Kabul. 90% of all the heroin consumed in the world is produced in Afganistan, but all efforts to stop the trade are useless without stronger military forces, which of course can't be provided with US and british forces engaged in Iraq.

[imported_GregW]

If I was Iranian I'd be worried about being "liberated" by the USA. If I remember correctly the last time they were "liberated" by the USA via the CIA, they got 30 yrs of the Shah. Remember how popular he was?

[Memphis Mike]

Originally posted by GregW:
If I was Iranian I'd be worried about being "liberated" by the USA. If I remember correctly the last time they were "liberated" by the USA via the CIA, they got 30 yrs of the Shah. Remember how popular he was?Yeah, well we're gonna liberate em the right way this time. We learn from our mistakes.

[imported_GregW]

Memphis Mike,

Good answer. :D

[BrianW]

Before this gets too gloryfied lets put this right.Okay, before the US led invasion (as no other countries were headed that was till the US did) the Taliban ruled Afganistan, now they have elections much like a democracy, or republic.

Let's not confuse that with the US bringing democracy to Afganistan, as it's waaaayyyy different.

Boy I was so wrong before... smile.gif

[Jack Heinlen]

Skimming, because I'm not all that interested.

Iran will not be allowed to continue nuclear weapons development. We, the US and Israel, won't allow it. I fully expect strikes within Iran in the next few months, but no invasion. We haven't the capacity to invade.

There is long standing hope that the essentially secular Iranians will throw the Ayatollahs out the door. We'll see.

[ 02-03-2005, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Jack Heinlen ]

[Jim H]

Originally posted by BrianW:
I thought we should have taken Syria from the begining. That would have given us an overland route from the Med. Sea. Then Turkey wouldn't have been such a stumbling block, and weapons would not have been hidden in that country.
Iraq gives you a toe in the Persian Gulf and sandwiches Iran between Iraq & Afghanistan. Should the people of Iran decide to throw off the yoke of the clerics, we would be right next door to provide aid & support. If Iran was to turn, financial support for hizbullah would dry up reducing their influence in the ME.

[BrianW]

Jim,

I was thinking of invading Iraq an Syria at the same time, as opposed to just Syria. But I like the way you think. smile.gif

[ccoffer]

While I am no geopolitical expert, I have to think that GWB and his enclave of advisors know at least as much as me.
After the smoke settles, there will be two secular nations(not including Israel) in the region.

We will have bases in one of them.

The Iranian people are not enemies of the US.

The wahabbinazis of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will become expendable assets after this deal comes to fruition.

No more nasty bedfellows. Strange? Yes. Nasty? No.

Just a thought.

[ 02-04-2005, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: ccoffer ]

[RodB]

Ever since the election I have not bothered to peruise this part of the forum and things haven't changed much here...

I agree that Iran will not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons... and that is in the best interest of the USA.

Since this post starts with the State of the Union Speech...I would also like to say... for those on the left... If you watched the speech and were not moved by the parents of the marine that died recently, then you have no heart... You can't seem to understand people who have a belief in something strong enough to be willing to give their lives if necessary. Can you imagine how far apart two factions are if one side is willing to give their life if necessary and the other thinks the entire cause is a joke or a ruse!

Its easier to make light of all this administration has tried to do by ridiculing the war and I almost think hoping that we fail in Iraq. I wonder how an antiwar american would feel in a face to face encounter with the parents of a soldier who has lost his life in this endeavor... Especially if the soldiers parents also believed in what he was doing as most do.

When all is said and done Iraq will be better off, so will Afganistan, and if this
administration has its way more and more would be enemies will be neutered before they can really harm us. I think that when positive things like the Iraq
election take place the real hate for this administration comes out of the mouths of the left. Its almost like they would rather cut off their tongues than admit that Iraq may turn out to be a positive endeavor with far reaching positive ramifications for our country.

The remarks of the two idiots for the far left leaning division of the Democratic party after the speech only hurt your cause, and certainly did not help it. As long as the
Democratic party contunues to let extreme leftists speak for them they will continue to become more and more marginalized...ending up being a party with minimal impact in this country...

Hopefully we can get some things accomplished for the country over the next few years.

RB

[ 02-04-2005, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: RodB ]

[ccoffer]

I fear for the future of my country.

The two party paradigm is breaking down. The opposition party is so dominated by nutbags that they are writing blank checks to the current regime.

Republican is becoming the default political identity of normal folk.

This does not bode well for the future of the republic.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
God's word is never changing ;) :D

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Jack Heinlen:

Iran will not be allowed to continue nuclear weapons development. We, the US and Israel, won't allow it. I fully expect strikes within Iran in the next few months, but no invasion. We haven't the capacity to invade.
Neither we or the Israelis (if they know what's good for them!) will make strikes on Iran in the next few months IMO. We can't take the chance that Iran would attack Iraq in return and that would be one hell of a furball! Might even suck in some russian bear fur! :eek:

Besides which, according to pre or post State of the Soap Opera coverage, we don't quite know just exactly where Iran's "stuff" is.

Of course, given 2 courses of action, we have a prez that will imagine up some worst of all possible worlds 3rd course of action. It's a matter of faith! ;)

[George.]

Originally posted by Jack Heinlen:
I fully expect strikes within Iran in the next few months ... There is long standing hope that the essentially secular Iranians will throw the Ayatollahs out the door. Those two are mutually exclusive, you know. If you think the Iranian people will try to change regimes in mid-stream right after an act of aggression by the US you need to read up on that country's historic relationship with America. Ugly, to say the least. Iranians may not like their regime, but they would back it against the US any day.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

You're either with us, or with the terrorists. ;)

[LeeG]

Rice says we aren't invading at this point in time...but we don't need to work with Europe on Iran,,but there's still diplomatic tools,,but they have WMD,,but,,but,,sounds like things are getting clearer...they gotta do X,,but we really don't respect the organization (UN) that inspects,quantifies the existance of a weapons program..but,,,European countries recommend Y,,we don't do Y we do X.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4233515.stm

[Garrett Lowell]

Did you read the same article as I did, Lee? I didn't quite draw the same "conclusions" as you.

[LeeG]

the only comment I got from that article is that military options are not on the table right now,,the rest is what I've got from other articles in the BBC website going back to last fall concerning US and Europe having different views and statements on how to handle Iran.
There's a range of rhetorical wiggle room she's expressing. Which is perfectly ok,,it worked for WMD and yellowcake purchases.
We want Europe and the IAEA to be more aggressive,,but we don't want to be involved,,we want to give Al Baridai,IAEA Director, the boot, but we want Iran to follow UN guidelines/inspections. We want other countries to help in Iraq,,but it's our ball in motion. Kind of a mixed bag.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4235121.stm

It's not the absence of anybody's involvement that is keeping the Iranians from knowing what they need to do," she said.

"They need to live up to their obligations, they need to agree to verification inspection, they need to stop trying to hide activities under cover of civilian nuclear power."

[ 02-04-2005, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

[Nora Lee]

How could you not be, moved by that young Marine's parents? I can empathize with them, my son is a proud Marine reservist and will go when and if called, but I for one will be an angry mother, if he pays the ultimate sacrifice for his country, as I do not believe that we have any right or reason to be in Iraq at this time!

If it were the Taliban, that we were persuing or Syria, who provided so many of the hijackers then I would support this action BUT the excuses to go into Iraq, do not evoke the same sense of patriotism for me.

I mourn each and every soldier and sailor who has lost their life, they are truly heroes in my book! But for the wrong reason in the wrong country!

I am sorry for those mercenaries and news correspondents, who have been beheaded, bombed and kidnapped, but they were there chasing the almighty dollar... and they knew the risks...but our boys and girls who have volunteered to be Uncle Sams military, have no real choice, where their country sends them or when!

Their families are suffering here at home both financially, emotionally. They deserve a lot of credit for their sacrifice...

God Bless OUR TROOPS, and Guide OUR Leaders, lead them in a path that will resolve this fiasco in the best possible way... Pray for Peace in the birthplace of most of the World's religions.

Guide our diplomats, that they might resolve ancient conflicts by making Jeruselum, an International City and relocating the United Nations there. Just a thought that has been going through my mind...we can work this out without bloodshed, we can work this out with prayer and understanding!

Regards,

Nora Lee

[LeeG]

more stuff

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17762

[LeeG]

and more stuff..

2.03.05
We May Stand With Them, But They’ll Fight Us Tooth And Nail
Joshua Holland (8:10PM) link

It's dangerous when your foreign policymakers believe their own propaganda. Good policy can't flow from shoddy analysis, and that's what we're looking at in Iran.

Today I had lunch with my friend SU, who just got back from an extended trip. Her family lives in exile, was close to the Shah and is very right wing. She's not.

When we met, she knew I wanted the scoop from Iran. The first words out of her mouth were: "man, is Washington lying":

I got all ready to go--I had this heavy black Châdor and the veil--the whole thing. I didn't wear any makeup, so I was very plain. When I got off the plane I stood out like a sore thumb. All the girls were running around très chic in their tight little outfits, picking up boys with their cell phones and doing their thing. It was embarrassing; I had to borrow clothes and makeup from my cousin because she wouldn't be seen with me outside the house looking like that.

OK, not quite the way we hear it. But there was much more:

I was all over the country, including some places I'd be scared to go without a guide. And the people really don't like the government. They're fed up. But they really hate the Americans--or, actually, the American government--and they'd fight to the last drop of blood if we invaded or if Israel bombed. Some would defend Iran and some would see it as defending Islam, depending on the social class, but whatever their ideology they would all fight the outside enemy. They're already signing up to be suicide bombers. Iran would make Iraq look like nothing.

Or, perhaps, like a cakewalk. Interestingly, she said that even in the Iran-Iraq war many Iranians felt they were defending Islam. Combine that with an administration hooked on the notion of Islam and Christianity in a Clash of Civilizations, and you've got a really scary, potentially disastrous pissing match.

It's also a fight between two nations that think their **** don't stink, if you know what I mean. This is from a note from SU, reprinted with her permission:

Contrary to popular belief, Iran's culture is not a monolithic one. Rather, it is a mixed culture. According to Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush, in his article "Three Cultures," Iran is a mix of the old Persian (Zoroastrian), Islamic, and Western thought…

The cultural heritage of the Zoroastrians is a belief in their spiritual and cultural superiority. Compromise with the outside world was considered a weakness.

…
Steadfastly clinging to the Zoroastrian pride and uncompromising stance--for compromise is considered to be a sign of capitulation and weakness-- the Iranians do not take favorably to the dictates of foreign nations. In fact, the history of Cyrus the Great is so embedded in most Iranians that they still think of themselves as a superpower. In revolt to America's demand that their right to nuclear technology be stopped, they are keener than ever to pursue it-- not as a violation or as a threat to world order, but as their inherent right. It is the Zoroastrian sense of superiority coupled with the Shiite sense of martyrdom that energizes the nation.

She said that the regime "loves to deal" and that "everything is on the table." You just can't approach them with a sticks-but-no-carrots strategy and expect anything but an ever more entrenched position. We're doing the opposite of what we should to accomplish our stated goals. SU:

The fact is that many Iranians think the regime would be in a lot more trouble if it weren't for the external pressure from the U.S. When they feel pressure, they clamp down on the domestic population and consolidate their power.

Whoa, that's way too much nuance for those morons making what we euphemistically call U.S. "foreign policy." For them, if you hate tyranny, you love the U.S. Basta cosi.

As they see it, Iran is all about nukes, nukes, nukes. So for the record let's re-state the plain fact that, according to the best information available, Iran is in full compliance with the IAEA's verification procedures. Here's Dr. ElBaradei's statement to the agency's Board of Directors in late November:

...at the opening of the Board last Thursday... I informed you that, with one exception, the Agency had been able to complete its verification of Iran's suspension of its enrichment related and reprocessing activities. That exception related to Iran's request to "use up to 20 sets of [centrifuge] components for R&D purposes." At that time, I noted that we were still in discussion on this matter.

On 28 November 2004, I received a letter from Iran in which it refers to the 20 sets of centrifuge components, and states that Iran "permits the IAEA to place these sets of components under Agency surveillance."

…

Today, Agency inspectors put surveillance cameras in place to monitor the 20 sets of centrifuge components. The identification numbers have also been received. As a consequence, all measures necessary for the verification of Iran's suspension of enrichment related activities are now in place. Naturally, in accordance with the draft resolution before you, I will inform Board members should the suspension not be fully sustained, or should the Agency be prevented from verifying all elements of the suspension.

Subsequently, the Bush administration--when it wasn't trying to knock ElBaradei off the job-- accused Iran of some hanky-panky at the Parchin military base. At first Tehran balked at allowing inspectors in but two weeks ago they caved, and IAEA agents were allowed to take soil samples. They'll be released in the near future. In the meantime, ElBaradei has praised Iranian compliance.

Now, I'm just a dumb guy on a blog--I have no access to intelligence data. But the U.S. has a treaty obligation to support the IAEA, and that means sharing if they have some evidence of malfeasance. The IAEA has asked Washington to put up or shut up, and they've done neither.

Instead we get nonsense like today's statement by "several Western diplomats" saying anonymously that "Iran has been testing parts for machines that could be used to develop nuclear weapons…"

Western diplos whispering on the down-low about nuclear weapon program-related machine... development. This all seems familiar.

The truth is that we are being led into a frightening game of brinkmanship with a country we understand poorly if at all. The Bush administration mumbles about air strikes--perhaps by Israel--and likens it to the bombing of Iraq's reactor in 1981. The difference is that there are an estimated 350 sites in Iran, and we don't know which are "hot." Hit the wrong one, maybe get a China Syndrome (there's some debate on that point). Invade, and deal with a thousand Fallujahs.

All this reminds me of the Hart-Rudman Report's warning that "the United States finds itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence in government." I'd say so.

[LeeG]

if the intel on Iraq was bad,,and we were patrolling it for over a decade with multiple opportunities for surveillance, with expert refugees from Chalabi,,just think how good the intel for Iran will be! Oh heck,,let's not let a lack of intel conflict with decisive action! GO CONDI!!!


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N09358843.htm

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by ccoffer:
While I am no geopolitical expert, I have to think that GWB and his enclave of advisors know at least as much as me.Well, that's mighty optimistic of you. I'd like to see some evidence that the whackjobs running this show have ever taken so much as a history class. You're talking about a guy whose academic career (such as it was) was an easy coast-through by being a legacy from a rather well-heeled family who went on to fail in every business he ever engaged in (until bailed out by daddy's likewise well-heeled friends.) The man who famously said that he didn't want to be President: he wanted to be Commissioner of Baseball. :rolleyes:


After the smoke settles, there will be two secular nations(not including Israel) in the region.

We will have bases in one of them.

The Iranian people are not enemies of the US.

The wahabbinazis of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will become expendable assets after this deal comes to fruition.So you basically admit that the point of the whole exercise is obtaining control of the oil supply? Glad somebody is being honest for once.

—
Lucky me, I hit the trifecta (http://www.findword.org/pa/parimutuel-gambling.html).</a>&mdash;G. W. Bush, mid-September 2001.

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by RodB:
If you watched the [state-of-the-onioni] speech and were not moved by the parents of the marine that died recently, then you have no heart... You can't seem to understand people who have a belief in something strong enough to be willing to give their lives if necessary.au contraire, I wasn't moved by Bush's cheap theatrics (it's a side effect of marriage to a theatre person: you recognize cheap theatricals for what they are. Nothing like a tug at the ol' heartstrings.)

I'm more than willing to die for this country if it's necessary. What I won't do, and what I'll fight to the last breath against, is dying for someone's self-aggrandizing game of Empire.


When all is said and done Iraq will be better off, so will Afganistan&hellip;Oddly, George Bush wansn't elected to office if improve the lot of either Afghanistan or Iraq. I belive his exact oath of office is
<span style="font-family:serif;">I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.I challenge you to find either Constitutional justification or "original intent" for "improving the lot" of other countries. I believe if you look at "original intent", you'll find that the Founders intended the US to remain free and clear of foreign entanglements.

"Improving the lot" of other nations aren't what I pay taxes for and that's not what George Bush was elected to office to do. And it is most certainly not what our national treasure and the blood of our young are expended for.

If the people of Iraq or Iran or North Korea or Suadi Arabia or China or Kuwait or Libya or the Sudan or&hellip want to "improve their lot", we're more than willing to help.

But: You can't impose freedom and democracy at the point of a gun: it makes, at the very least, a mockery of the very notion and further, it's unlikely to succeed.


Its almost like they would rather cut off their tongues than admit that Iraq may turn out to be a positive endeavor with far reaching positive ramifications for our country.Positive? I'm pretty sure Americans will be dying in Iraq for the next 5 years. And when we finally do bail, I'm pretty sure the government in place will a strong man no better than Hussein (and probably worse) and likely a fundamentalist theocracy.

As Colin Powell warned Bush in 2002, invoking the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it. Powell said to Bush, warning him of the hazards of the course of action he had chosen, "You're going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all." (Bob Woodward, [i]Plan of Attack)

And the sad thing is that at the end of the exercise, the oil still runs out.

It would be cheaper (and a more effective foreign policy) for us to establish a "Manhattan Project" instead: In ten years, the United States will kick its oil habit. 'Course that would take courage and leadership, two things that are sadly lacking in Washington these days.

That emasculates the real enemy, Saudi Arabia, leaving with neither cash nor clout.

[LeeG]

Nicholas, that would be like an addict blaming the dealer for his addiction, oh hell why not,see, if we get "them" to be like us they won't hate us because we're free and we won't have to be afraid of them,,for the $500 Billion or so that the Iraq war will cost it sounds like a lot of talking therapy,er bad metaphor,,

[LeeG]

Khatami is a moderate, sounds like he's advocating a scorched Iran defense policy...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002177190_iran11.html

[LeeG]

Is it a concern that we're flying into iranian airspace?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2005/iran-050213-voa01.htm

[ken mcclure]

George --> :D

It's just a shame that we didn't find out sooner that there was no oil in Viet Nam......