The U.S. may have been attacked in Iraq by Iranian forces. If proof of this can be found, retaliation is a real possibility.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html

Things in the entire region seem to be spiraling out of control. A much wider war in the entire region seems possible, or even likely. Even as this is happening, the pentagon has finally stopped selling surplus F-14 spare parts, after a reporter learned that some of them had been sold to agents for Iran. Iran still has F-14 fighters that we sold them in the 1970's when they were our ally in the region. They have had trouble obtaining spare parts, until we retired the F-14, and have been selling off our extra parts.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/30/pentagon.f14.ap/index.html

The U.S. may have been attacked in Iraq by Iranian forces. If proof of this can be found, retaliation is a real possibility.

I wouldn't worry if they do not find proof, if they don't find them, they will get fabricated by whatever means, and the captive press will bang our heads over and over and over, until all the "SHEEP" get convinced that it is the "holly truth".
Doesn't anybody remember": "Saddam must disarm"... "Saddam must desarm"... "Saddam must disarm"... "Saddam must disarm"... "Saddam must disarm"... "Saddam must disarm"... "Saddam must disarm"... "Saddam must disarm"... like a mantra. No more words than these...

WWIII here we come. I just dont know how the US is going to be able to handle another war, one that will surely be much harder than the current one in Iraq. Even if they (Iran) didnt carry out the attack, I think some sort of conflict is almost inevitable. What im hoping for is that those in Iran that are against President A's hard line agenda against the west and Israel will end up winning out in that country.

I wouldn't worry if they do not find proof, if they don't find them, they will get fabricated by whatever means, and the captive press will bang our heads over and over and over, until all the "SHEEP" get convinced that it is the "holly truth".
Doesn't anybody remember": "Saddam must disarm"... "Saddam must desarm"... "Saddam must disarm"... "Saddam must disarm"... "Saddam must disarm"... "Saddam must disarm"... "Saddam must disarm"... "Saddam must disarm"... like a mantra. No more words than these...

I really do not think that anyone, including the current administration, wants a war with Iran.

I forgot to add that while the "mantra" was getting deep into the subconsciousness of the "SHEEP", the other players of the administration were creating a whole "symphony" with a lot of music nice to the ears of the "SHEEP", and no actual "proof" was ever given, but they invaded anyway.

Yep, I also fear an attack on Iran which could so easily spread more war across the Middle East.

But what will be the excuse - sorry 'reason' - for attacking Iran? Their backing of Hezbollah? Their 'interference' in Iraq (as if the US and others aren't busy interfering)? Will the US goad Iran into attacking US ships in the Gulf? Or will it be the threat from the mythical Iranian Nuclear Bomb?

Caspar Willard Weinberger, Jr.son of the late Caspar Weinberger, the Iran-Contra criminal responsible for selling weapons to Iran, indicted but pardoned by Bush Senior, tells us the “United States finally seems to be getting serious about Iran’s increasingly hostile and aggressive tendencies regarding its nuclear program and its apparent wish to dominate the whole Mideast theater.”

According to the junior Weinberger, diplomacy is for wimps and, thankfully, “we now finally seem to be responding to Ahmadinejad’s Iran in the only language he and his cronies really understand: brute strength,” that is to say the United States will brutally shock and awe Iranian grandmothers and infants, and that’ll teach ‘em to mess with us, that is to say Israel.

Never mind Iran is unable to manufacture nukes and its “hostile and aggressive tendencies” are, by and large, the manufacture of hateful neocons.

from 'As Iran's Nuke Program Stands in Shambles, Neocons Press Onward with Shock and Awe Campaign' by Kurt Nimmo

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=733

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_nuke_program_shambles_neocons_press_onward.ht m

Yep, I also fear an attack on Iran which could so easily spread more war across the Middle East.

But what will be the excuse - sorry 'reason' - for attacking Iran? Their backing of Hezbollah? Their 'interference' in Iraq (as if the US and others aren't busy interfering)? Will the US goad Iran into attacking US ships in the Gulf? Or will it be the threat from the mythical Iranian Nuclear Bomb?



from 'As Iran's Nuke Program Stands in Shambles, Neocons Press Onward with Shock and Awe Campaign' by Kurt Nimmo

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=733

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_nuke_program_shambles_neocons_press_onward.ht m


Are these the places you get your news from? If that stuff wasnt insanely biased, I dont know what is.

But anyways, no, Iran has not yet developed a nuclear weapon. But they are working towards it, I mean do you really think all those hard water plants, and underground facilities are there for "peaceful purposes"? Im not advocating that we go attack Iran either. Personally I think it would be a mistake, especially right now. However, as I stated above, I believe that conflict is inevitable with Iran unless those in Iran who oppose Ahmadinejad’s hard line agenda against the west and Israel step up and do something. But I know Israel will not let Iran go on trying to develop any kind of nuclear program, and if Iran is indeed carrying out attacks in Iraq, the US will in all likelyhood retaliate somehow.

If its us the U.S. vs. Iran.. how does that make it a "World War"?

How many countries do we have to be at war with before it is a World War?. We are already fighting in 2 countries. Adding a third makes it as many as we fought in World War II.

How many countries do we have to be at war with before it is a World War?. We are already fighting in 2 countries. Adding a third makes it as many as we fought in World War II.

It will be, unfortunately it'll be christians/jews vs muslims.

US, israel, uk, ect, vs iran, iraqi opposition, probably syria, and others that wouldnt have a direct role.

Id call that a world war.

Are these the places you get your news from? If that stuff wasnt insanely biased, I dont know what is.

But anyways, no, Iran has not yet developed a nuclear weapon. But they are working towards it, I mean do you really think all those hard water plants, and underground facilities are there for "peaceful purposes"? Im not advocating that we go attack Iran either. Personally I think it would be a mistake, especially right now. However, as I stated above, I believe that conflict is inevitable with Iran unless those in Iran who oppose Ahmadinejad’s hard line agenda against the west and Israel step up and do something. But I know Israel will not let Iran go on trying to develop any kind of nuclear program, and if Iran is indeed carrying out attacks in Iraq, the US will in all likelyhood retaliate somehow.

What right has Israel got to tell Iran what it can and can't do? Why should we listen to Israel pontificating about Iran when Israel has approx. 100-200 nuclear weapons and hasn't signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Iran is a signatory to the NPT and has no nuclear arms. Even if it has ambitions of being a nuclear power it probably won't be in a position to build a nuclear bomb for at least 5-10 years. This is according to both US Intelligence and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I hope these sources aren't too biased for you ;))

Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb
U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html

ElBaradei Says Iran Is at Least 5 Years Away From Nuclear Arms
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3HDzGEKJD1k&refer=home


``We have not seen any facilities capable of building a weapon,'' International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. ``We are not dealing with a threat tomorrow.''

It's hardly the Cuban Missile Crisis, is it?

If Iran is sending troops into Iraq to carry out military attacks against U.S. troops, then they are a combatant in that war. If you are a combatant in a war, you ought to be subject to attack by other belligerents in that war. Whether we ought to be in that war is irrelevant for this discussion, we are in the war. We do have a right to protect our troops, and we may well exercise that right.
I fear Phyrex is right. This war could expand suddenly, and merge with other wars. That happened at the start of World War II. The war between Japan and China merged with the war in Europe to become a single conflict. Many countries on the edge of the conflict could be drawn into the war. As it expands, the number one issue in the next Presidential campaign will be the expanding war, and the need for a much larger military if we are going to fight it. It should be an interesting couple of years.

Iran's crude oil reserves are located in the southwestern Khuzestan region near the Iraqi border and the Persian Gulf. All the U.S. has to do is step over the Iraq border and plop down a staging area and then (wo)man it to the point we can hold it and just like magic, we own Iran's oil ... one of the largest reserves in the world ... ~ 100 billion bbl.

This whole thing has nothing to do with nuclear weapons nor the safety of Israel albeit both of those reasons lay good cover. Plus the U.S. and Israel get to kill another million or so civilians as red meat for the conservative base.

Follow the money.

For all those worrying about a war with iran i have two words, stop worrying. Two reasons, 1)The internal pressures facing iran are much greater than you think. 2) We are not in a position to engage iran directly.
Although i'm sure the left will bang the drum loudly on this it's a non-starter.

maybe we could send over 100,000 environmentalists to hold the oil fields. Tell them if they can hold it no one can use it. They would fight to the death. Their battle crys of "caribou! caribou!" would be heard clear to baghdad. We coud arm them with recycled WW2 vintage weapons. No depleted uranium, please.

A new war in the Middle East is not the best thing if to count gas prices i think..

What right has Israel got to tell Iran what it can and can't do? Why should we listen to Israel pontificating about Iran when Israel has approx. 100-200 nuclear weapons and hasn't signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Iran is a signatory to the NPT and has no nuclear arms. Even if it has ambitions of being a nuclear power it probably won't be in a position to build a nuclear bomb for at least 5-10 years. This is according to both US Intelligence and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I hope these sources aren't too biased for you ;))

Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb
U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html

ElBaradei Says Iran Is at Least 5 Years Away From Nuclear Arms
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3HDzGEKJD1k&refer=home




It's hardly the Cuban Missile Crisis, is it?

Yeah, its not the Cuban Missle Crisis (btw there is a good movie on that called 13 days, you guys should watch it) but it is a crsis nonthelsess, and its going to come to action sooner than later. Israel doesnt really have the right to tell Iran what it can and cant do, but Israel will do something if it feels thretened. We all know how pres A feels about Israel dont we? And thats only one problem. If Iran really is carrying out attacks against US forces in Iraq, then you know we arent going to do nothing about it. That whole region is going to be thrown into a war if we keep on the path we're headed. Also if we are not successful in Iraq, you know Iran is going to be all over it as soon as we leave. Iraq will turn into an Iranian puppet state. Its a big shit sandwich if you ask me.

maybe we could send over 100,000 environmentalists to hold the oil fields. Tell them if they can hold it no one can use it. They would fight to the death. Their battle crys of "caribou! caribou!" would be heard clear to baghdad. We coud arm them with recycled WW2 vintage weapons. No depleted uranium, please.

LOL, great post

Yep, I also fear an attack on Iran which could so easily spread more war across the Middle East.

But what will be the excuse - sorry 'reason' - for attacking Iran?

Never fear.

A "reason" will surface. And the gullible masses will soon be seen waving their little flags and BAAA!!!! BAAAAAA!!! BAAAAAAAAAA-ing!!!!! their approval.

The neo-Cons are consummate masters of inventing "reasons" that we have to attack various countries.

________________________________________________

The Corporate States of America has for many decades had a policy of ruthlessly attacking --thru either clandestine means or outright military invasion-- any country on earth that gets in the way of U.S. Corporate profits or who is not willing to play by US-imposed rules; Iran under Mossadegh, Guatemala under Arbenz, Cuba under Castro, Chile under Allende, Nicaragua under the Sandinistas and Ortega, Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, and Bolivia under Morales, to name but a few. The list is long and bloody.

Never fear.

A "reason" will surface. And the gullible masses will soon be seen waving their little flags and BAAA!!!! BAAAAAA!!! BAAAAAAAAAA-ing!!!!! their approval.

The neo-Cons are consummate masters of inventing "reasons" that we have to attack various countries...

I really dont think anyone will cheer a war with Iran. Not even the current administration.

It will be, unfortunately it'll be christians/jews vs muslims.

US, israel, uk, ect, vs iran, iraqi opposition, probably syria, and others that wouldnt have a direct role.

Id call that a world war.
I'd call it a massacre.

Never fear. A "reason" will surface. ...

What would you recommend if incontrovertible proof is delivered showing that Iran is supplying arms and troops into the ongoing hostilities in Iraq?

If Bush attacks Iran, the good side will be ... the end of the republican party.

Bring 'em on.

Nonsense.

What would you recommend if incontrovertible proof is delivered showing that Iran is supplying arms and troops into the ongoing hostilities in Iraq?

You mean like the "incontrovertible proof" Bushie had for Saddam's WMD? For the mobile weapons labs? For the aluminum tubes? For the yellow cake?

Sorry, but unless I see an indy-media video of a bunch of Iranians (with "IRAN!" printed on their shirts) personally handing weapons over to a bunch of Iraqis (with "IRAQ!" printed on their shirts) I won't believe a thing that this administration says about Iran.

Sorry, but unless I see an indy-media video of a bunch of Iranians (with "IRAN!" printed on their shirts) personally handing weapons over to a bunch of Iraqis (with "IRAQ!" printed on their shirts) I won't believe a thing that this administration says about Iran.
Then listen to the rest of the world.

You mean like the "incontrovertible proof" Bushie had for Saddam's WMD? For the mobile weapons labs? For the aluminum tubes? For the yellow cake?

Sorry, but unless I see an indy-media video of a bunch of Iranians (with "IRAN!" printed on their shirts) personally handing weapons over to a bunch of Iraqis (with "IRAQ!" printed on their shirts) I won't believe a thing that this administration says about Iran.

No, actually what I had in mind was the kind of proof that JFK delivered to the nation when facing the Russians over missles in Cuba. When I wrote "incontrovertible", I meant exactly that - something that's absolutely without question.

For all those worrying about a war with iran i have two words, stop worrying. Two reasons, 1)The internal pressures facing iran are much greater than you think. 2) We are not in a position to engage iran directly.
Although i'm sure the left will bang the drum loudly on this it's a non-starter.


It isn't the 'left' who are banging the drum on Iran, if anyone is banging any drums it's the US government. I would call sending a second aircraft carrier battle group to the Gulf banging the drum!

I really dont think anyone will cheer a war with Iran. Not even the current administration.

No, they'll be putting on their best 'grim determination' face.

If Bush attacks Iran, the good side will be ... the end of the republican party.

Bring 'em on.
Hooray for one-party states, because we all know that those have been so successful over the years.

Israel doesnt really have the right to tell Iran what it can and cant do, but Israel will do something if it feels thretened. We all know how pres A feels about Israel dont we? And thats only one problem. If Iran really is carrying out attacks against US forces in Iraq, then you know we arent going to do nothing about it. That whole region is going to be thrown into a war if we keep on the path we're headed. Also if we are not successful in Iraq, you know Iran is going to be all over it as soon as we leave. Iraq will turn into an Iranian puppet state. Its a big shit sandwich if you ask me.


Israel (or some Israelis) might 'feel' threatened from Iran but do they really have much to fear? Iran certainly isn't any kind of 'existential threat' to Israel like the Zionist propagandists like to tell us.

And you're right, it is all a big $hit sandwich - the trick is not to eat it! ;)

Do the math ...

At the current pace of staying the surge the dems stand to pick up 8 more seats in the senate without breaking a sweat and that's nearly a given. Add in Allard's seat in CO, Sununu in NH and now Al Franken will run against Coleman in Minnesota ... looks like 11-seat pickup for the dems making it 60-38-2 dems favor in the senate.

In the house, look for at least 30 more dem seats and possibly as many as 80.

If that doesn't spell the end of the republican party ... what does?

Do the math ...

At the current pace of staying the surge the dems stand to pick up 8 more seats in the senate without breaking a sweat and that's nearly a given. Add in Allard's seat in CO, Sununu in NH and now Al Franken will run against Coleman in Minnesota ... looks like 11-seat pickup for the dems making it 60-38-2 dems favor in the senate.

In the house, look for at least 30 more dem seats and possibly as many as 80.

If that doesn't spell the end of the republican party ... what does?
The oppositiion taking a large portion of the majority in Congress does not mean the end of a political party. The stage of flaccidness experienced by the Republicans will be transient. In years to come both parties will have different platforms, perhaps even different philosophies, but will still be fighting each other.

The Republicans won't go away, they'll pull back, regroup and once again step forward into the fray. Maybe they'll come back with better ideas than the current ones have been kicking around, maybe they won't. Perhaps we'll even see the emergence of a true third party - one that's able to take enough seats to make their voices heard.

Perhaps we'll even see the emergence of a true third party - one that's able to take enough seats to make their voices heard.
God willing.

For the republican party to survive, they must dump the neocon agenda and either control the hatred of the christian right or force the christian right to form a 3rd party.

There is no other way they survive. PERIOD.

Change is inevitable.

For the republican party to survive, they must dump the neocon agenda and either control the hatred of the christian right or force the christian right to form a 3rd party.

There is no other way they survive. PERIOD.
You have the terms "survive" and "being successful" confused.

And no, I don't think a third party is going to rise in your lifetime ES.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
Never fear. A "reason" will surface...

What would you recommend if incontrovertible proof is delivered showing that Iran is supplying arms and troops into the ongoing hostilities in Iraq?

Personally, I would recommend the U.S. completely withdraw from the war in Iraq, an illegal and pre-emptive war that was fomented on false pretenses.

When the US withdraws, Iran would --in the hypothetical situation we're talking about-- no longer have a reason to send that sort of aid to Iraq.

I would also recommend that the US pay reparations to Iraq for the massive human slaughter and damage to the infrastructure that they've done. Finally, I'd recommend that those who fomented the war based on lies be tried in the World Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Neither Congress nor the President has the right to engage the U.S. in a war of aggression and any vote of endorsement, far from legalizing or legitimizing global war plans, serves only as ratification of war crimes. Under the principles of universal accountability established at Nuremberg, "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law." ... The Bush Administration has rejected the International Criminal Court treaty signed by over 130 countries.(http://www.un.org/law/icc/) This rejection is an admission of the administration's consciousness of guilt and of criminal intentions. The Bush administration acts with a conscious disregard of humanitarian laws and a stated intention to avoid accountability for their crimes under international law prohibiting crimes against the peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The National Security Strategy promulgated by the Bush administration states that the United States "will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept." ---------http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/NSSofUS.html#p2


The country of Iraq and its people were FAR better off under Hussein than it is or ever will be under the Corporatist leadeship of America that was so desperate for this war to be waged.

The oppositiion taking a large portion of the majority in Congress does not mean the end of a political party. The stage of flaccidness experienced by the Republicans will be transient. In years to come both parties will have different platforms, perhaps even different philosophies, but will still be fighting each other.

Totally disagree ... your party has been hijacked by the fundamentalist christians and the neocons and america is quicky tiring of both. There will be no new agenda or platform for the republican party EVER ... they aren't smart enough to figure it out. Hence, they bring about their own demise through stubborness and violating one of Einstein's brilliant quotes ...

INSANITY: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

It's not too late to switch to the libertatian party -- that's about all you have left.

Totally disagree
If you think the Republican Party is "finished" after a war with Iran, and will fade away, you need to give up on talking about politics.
... your party has been hijacked by the fundamentalist christians and the neocons and america is quicky tiring of both. There will be no new agenda or platform for the republican party EVER ... they aren't smart enough to figure it out. Hence, they bring about their own demise through stubborness and violating one of Einstein's brilliant quotes ...
My party? You twit, I'm not a Repbublican.

And the Republican platform was different 40 years ago, it was 40 years before that, and it will be 40 years in the future.
It's not too late to switch to the libertatian party -- that's about all you have left.
You twit.

If you think the Republican Party is "finished" after a war with Iran, and will fade away, you need to give up on talking about politics.

My party? You twit, I'm not a Repbublican.

And the Republican platform was different 40 years ago, it was 40 years before that, and it will be 40 years in the future.

You twit.

twit ??? WTF???

twit ??? WTF???
You didn't answer anything he said....

You didn't answer anything he said....

I'm still trying to figure out what twit means ... talk about going off topic ... this thread was about Iran ... not twits.

I'm still trying to figure out what twit means ... talk about going off topic ... this thread was about Iran ... not twits.
Twit (noun): A silly or foolish person.

It's like a nicer version of idiot.

Twit (noun): A silly or foolish person.

It's like a nicer version of idiot.

What? An idiot? Me? ROTF

And you tell me I should answer him?

What? An idiot? Me? ROTF

And you tell me I should answer him?
Well you consistently refer to him as a Republican, when he is NOT, and he has told you so more than once. Do you blame him for being a tiny bit irritated?

Well you consistently refer to him as a Republican, when he is NOT, and he has told you so more than once. Do you blame him for being a tiny bit irritated?

Then why does he always defend the conservatives?

... (the Republican) party has been hijacked by the fundamentalist christians and the neocons .....

You are absolutely correct. It has been to a very large degree taken over by fundamentalists and far Right neocons.

....and america is quicky tiring of both.

Here is where you go off the rails, Dop.

America is never going to "tire of" fundamentalists and far Right neocons.......you ARE aware, are you not, that 50 something million Americans voted for Bush in 2004, knowing full well and de facto approving of the fact that he represented the Party of fundamentalist zealots and hard Right neoCons.............?!?!?!?!?!

A huge segment of America is (sadly) made up of fundamentalist religionists and neocons........and will be for the foreseeable future.


There will be no new agenda or platform for the republican party EVER ......

But they do not NEED a new agenda or platform, Dop, as long as +50 million sheep love the platform and agenda that the Republicans have.

War, anti-environmentalism, "We're big and fucking bad and we'll send in the troops and kick yore ass!", and "No way will we ever allow them durty queers to marry one another!"

Get real, Lungdop. It is a platform that half of this fucked up insane asylum of a country LOVES.


I see (to my infinite regret) little to no diminishing of the Republican Party.

Then why does he always defend the conservatives?
Evakian has a tendency to argue positions just to make a point. And, like me, he is blessed with the ability to see both sides of an argument and defend the good points of both. This is just like in that other thread where dharma accused ME of being a conservative.

Then why does he always defend the conservatives?
To piss you off.

Oh, and Dop, he didn't defend the conservatives in this thread, he just said that he doesn't think the Republican party is close to dying. I don't think so either, and I hate them.

You are absolutely correct. It has been to a very large degree taken over by fundamentalists and far Right neocons.



Here is where you go off the rails, Dop.

America is never going to "tire of" fundamentalists and far Right neocons.......you ARE aware, are you not, that 50 something million Americans voted for Bush in 2004, knowing full well and de facto approving of the fact that he represented the Party of fundamentalist zealots and hard Right neoCons.............?!?!?!?!?!

A huge segment of America is (sadly) made up of fundamentalist religionists and neocons........and will be for the foreseeable future.




But they do not NEED a new agenda or platform, Dop, as long as +50 million sheep love the platform and agenda that the Republicans have.

War, anti-environmentalism, "We're big and fucking bad and we'll send in the troops and kick yore ass!", and "No way will we ever allow them durty queers to marry one another!"

Get real, Lungdop. It is a platform that half of this fucked up insane asylum of a country LOVES.


I see (to my infinite regret) little to no diminishing of the Republican Party.

Great points, FT. You make the best points of all the ultra-liberals. :D

Here is where you go off the rails, Dop.

America is never going to "tire of" fundamentalists and far Right neocons.......you ARE aware, are you not, that 50 something million Americans voted for Bush in 2004, knowing full well and de facto approving of the fact that he represented the Party of fundamentalist zealots and hard Right neoCons.............?!?!?!?!?!



Not all 50 million are christofascists. Many are gun lovers that are truly convinced the dems will take their guns and many are afraid the dems will let more Mexicans in the country and many just plain hate democrats etc etc etc.

Not all 50 million are christofascists.

True enough.....but the ones who aren't fundamentalist zealots seemingly have no problem with the government coming more and more under the control of the Xtian religionists.

Many are gun lovers that are truly convinced the dems will take their guns .......

True.

That bit of propaganda was a masterstoke by the Republicans.

There is about the same likelyhood that the Dems would be responsible for taking America's guns away as there is that pigs will fly.

If the Dems EVER wanted to win an election, all they'd have to do is make a huge public story over it, and come out and swear on the Holey Babble that they will never sign any law that would take the guns out of American's hands.

......and many are afraid the dems will let more Mexicans in the country .......

Another unbelievable propaganda accomplishment by the far Righties.

The Republicans are every bit as much (or more) responsible for illegals continuing to enter this country than the Dems are.

No, actually what I had in mind was the kind of proof that JFK delivered to the nation when facing the Russians over missles in Cuba. When I wrote "incontrovertible", I meant exactly that - something that's absolutely without question.

I certainly hope that such proof would preceed any attack on Iran. There are a number of ways such proof could be found. For example, capturing a member of the Iranian military or Revolutionary Guard in the act of attacking U.S. military personnel. If that were to occur, something would need to be done, although invasion is not the only option even then. Considerable pressure could be applied, for instance, with a naval blockade of their oil terminals.
I would not put it past the current administration to proceed on less convincing and possibly erroneous information, however. I can only hope Congress would act in such a case, preferably by impeachment of both the President and Vice-President.

Twit (noun): A silly or foolish person.

It's like a nicer version of idiot.

Correct me if I'm wrong ... but didn't you recently make a post regarding the name-calling on the forum and how it was out of line?

Correct me if I'm wrong ... but didn't you recently make a post regarding the name-calling on the forum and how it was out of line?
that post was directed at me, and it was way out of line. there's a huge difference between telling Dharma that comparing him to bird droppings is an insult to birds, and explaining the word twit.

that post was directed at me, and it was way out of line. there's a huge difference between telling Dharma that comparing him to bird droppings is an insult to birds, and explaining the word twit.
Thank you Mike, that's perfectly right. "Twit" is quite a mild insult, like "weenie" or "silly goose", pretty much. I complain about things like "fucking insane imbecile", which I think everyone will agree is much worse than "twit".

That said, Dop, I didn't advocate Evakian's insult toward you, I merely explained to you what it meant since you said you didn't know. I didn't think that silly little insult required another rant from me about name-calling, but I 'm sincerely remorseful if your feelings were hurt by my failure to tell Evakian off for that. :)

Thank you Mike, that's perfectly right. "Twit" is quite a mild insult, like "weenie" or "silly goose", pretty much. I complain about things like "fucking insane imbecile", which I think everyone will agree is much worse than "twit".

That said, Dop, I didn't advocate Evakian's insult toward you, I merely explained to you what it meant since you said you didn't know. I didn't think that silly little insult required another rant from me about name-calling, but I 'm sincerely remorseful if your feelings were hurt by my failure to tell Evakian off for that. :)

I'm sorry -- but calling someone an idiot (whether implicit or explicit) is an insult.

I'm sorry -- but calling someone an idiot (whether implicit or explicit) is an insult.

Not if they really ARE idiotic. Then it's just the truth. :thumbs:

This is simply mind-boggling....

Apparently, Iran is the only nation on earth still flying the F-14 Tomcat. We sold Iran their fighter jets in the 1970s (we retired our own Tomcats last fall). Because they do not produce their own military aircraft, Iran is heavily dependent on foreign markets for spare parts. U.S. law enforcement officials believe Iran can make only about 15 percent of the components it needs for the jets, so.....

In order to help Iran keep its fighter jets viable and dangerous, our military/administration geniuses have been selling our old F-14 parts to them for months (until last Friday, that is, when an Associated Press story brought the matter to public scrutiny). Full story here (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1583715,00.html).

It would appear that our military/political leaders finally figured out that selling necessary aircraft parts to Iran might just create a problem for us somewhere down the line.

Or maybe they've been enabling Iran to come after us, so we can go after them...

Both scenarios are frightening. Either our military/political leaders are too stupid to recognize the inherent danger in selling necessary war-making materials to nations that are beligerant and aggressive toward us, or they were hoping to give Iran enough military might to pick a fight with us.

Given the collosal lies we've been handed by the Bush administration for the last five years about Iraq, Saddam, WMD, al Queda, terrorist activities, etc., I'm more inclined to believe the latter. I mean, if you're hoping to provoke a war next door (Iran) so that Congress will continue funding the war you really want to fight (Iraq), I can't think of a better way to go about it.


:rolleyes:

We may as well stop pussyfooting around the issue and start raining bombs on the Mullahs in Iran. It's gonna happen, so why delay. Launch the cruise missiles pronto. The sooner the better.

I'm sorry -- but calling someone an idiot (whether implicit or explicit) is an insult.
My god, am I supposed to be the goddamn forum police around here? I'm not a moderator, I'm not required to give a warning whenever I see an insult! I try to get people to be nice, but now apparently you expect me to try to protect everyone. I'm so, so, so sorry that I didn't make another rant about insults that would be ignored by everyone. I give up. :(

It would sure get ignored by me, you bunny-lover!

It would sure get ignored by me, you bunny-lover!
Yeah, I am a bunny-lover. Literally. ;)

Me=completely going to hell. :D

*Irish British accent*
All of those sweet, cuddly bunnies... ALL OVER THE PLACE!! Just sitting there, acting cute...

DAMN WOMAN!! Don't you have any sense?!?!

*Irish British accent*
All of those sweet, cuddly bunnies... ALL OVER THE PLACE!! Just sitting there, acting cute...

DAMN WOMAN!! Don't you have any sense?!?!
Don't call me "woman" in that tone! It turns me on!:lolhit:

WOMAN!! WOMAN!! WOMAN!!

Me=Totally going to hell

WOMAN!! WOMAN!! WOMAN!!

Me=Totally going to hell
That wasn't the same tone! Hah! It didn't work!

WOMAN!! WOMAN!! WOMAN!!

Me=Totally going to hell
i thought you didn't believe in God, Hell, or something of the sort?

baka baka baka BAKA!

i thought you didn't believe in God, Hell, or something of the sort?
Ah man, you just totally killed it.

Ah man, you just totally killed it.
you can thank me later...16 will get you 10 to 25.

Ah man, you just totally killed it.
Ah man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you can thank me later...16 will get you 10 to 25.
Not to mention DF specifically will get him a size 11 New Balance in his ass. :-P

you can thank me later...16 will get you 10 to 25.
I'm taken... So he doesn't have to worry about that.

Not to mention DF specifically will get him a size 11 New Balance in his ass. :-P
:-*

Ah man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Has The Dude taken over your computer?!?!

Ah man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://123pichosting.com/images/5553av-571.gif

Has The Dude taken over your computer?!?!Ha ha! You beat me to it by less than a minute! :)

Not to mention DF specifically will get him a size 11 New Balance in his ass. :-P
i wasn't going to go there.

I'm taken... So he doesn't have to worry about that.
..or there.
http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/page/sexualharassment-2337.jpg

Not to mention DF specifically will get him a size 11 New Balance in his ass. :-P
You're so cute... Borgie, if she's taken already, how about you and me get together and play doctor sometime? I'm sure we can put that foot to good use!

You're so cute... Borgie, if she's taken already, how about you and me get together and play doctor sometime? I'm sure we can put that foot to good use!
I have only one thing to say to that. And that is...

...Look behind you! A bear! ::runs away::

A bear!

Oh, well if that's how you want to play...

You're so cute... Borgie, if she's taken already, how about you and me get together and play doctor sometime? I'm sure we can put that foot to good use!
Oooh.... I'll bring the video camera!!

I understand that threads go off topic sometimes, but how did we go from "Iran - The Next War" to homoerotic foot fetish films?

I understand that threads go off topic sometimes, but how did we go from "Iran - The Next War" to homoerotic foot fetish films?
That's surprising to you? Didn't we go from a discussion about some dry political topic to a discussion about the price of Juicy Fruit and whores one time?

That's surprising to you? Didn't we go from a discussion about some dry political topic to a discussion about the price of Juicy Fruit and whores one time?

I remember that one, that was on some random thread FT started.

I don't have any certain source about Iran.
But I guess Ahmadinejad is shallowness and ambitious person. Maybe someone tells Ahmadinejad what to be statusy president. The answer is nuclear development.

He will never quit the nuclear development. He wants to that everybody treating himself. And, if everyone do so, he wants everyone to more treating himself. It's not that aiming to the purpose on economy or politics. It's just his ego. He wants to everybody dropping knees to himself.
It's just his ego, and he doesn't want to money, he just want everybody dropping knees to himself.
I can tell to only one thing. Telling Ahmadinejad that "Even if Iran will make enemies of the world, Russia won't stand for Iran". Russia won't provide weapon to Iran by free of charge, even if Iran have nuclear weapon. Moreover, Iran can't buy weapon from other countries, Russia will sell weapon by expensive cost. When Ahmadinejad will know it, maybe new situation will be born.

Ahmadinejad Vows Iran to Continue Nuke Activities Despite IAEA Report
Friday, February 23, 2007

UNITED NATIONS — Iran is "thumbing its nose" at the international community by expanding its uranium program, a top U.S. official said, setting the stage for difficult negotiations on new U.N. sanctions, with the U.S. likely to push for tougher measures.

In the wake of the U.N. nuclear agency's confirmation that Iran expanded its uranium enrichment program, senior diplomats from the five permanent Security Council nations and Germany will meet on Monday in London to start work on a new resolution to try to pressure Iran to suspend that program, which can lead to the production of nuclear weapons.

Among the permanent council members, Britain and France are likely to join the U.S. in a call for harsher sanctions than Russia and China will accept.

Some diplomats said the new measure may invoke travel bans, expand the list of technology and materials countries are banned from making available to Iran and create stiffer economic sanctions, among other options.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Friday that Iran would defend its nuclear program, describing his country as a potential role model for others trying to develop advanced technology.

Ahmadinejad declared that if his country reaches the "peaks of technology and science, then it will be a role model" for other countries, state television quoted him as saying in an apparent reference to nuclear power.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, who announced the London meeting in Washington, said Thursday that Iran was "effectively thumbing its nose at the international community" and a new resolution was needed to "see Iran repudiated again."

He said, however, that it was too soon to say what provisions the resolution might contain.

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said he had "no substantive comment" on the International Atomic Energy Agency's report Thursday which concluded that "Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities" as the Security Council demanded in a resolution adopted on Dec. 23. But he reiterated Moscow's desire for a diplomatic negotiated solution.

"We should not lose sight of the goal — and the goal is not to have a resolution or to impose sanctions," Churkin said. "The goal is to accomplish a political outcome."

The IAEA began probing Iran's nuclear activities more than four years ago, after revelations of nearly 20 years of secret work that included plans to enrich uranium. Since then, it has made several worrying finds, including Iranian experiments with plutonium, unexplained traces of enriched uranium, and a document showing how to mold uranium into the shape of nuclear warheads.

Last June, the six nations offered Tehran a package of economic incentives and political rewards if it agreed to consider a long-term moratorium on enrichment and committed itself to a freeze before negotiations on its nuclear program. Tehran refused to comply with an Aug. 31 deadline to suspend enrichment, insisting its program is aimed solely at producing nuclear energy.

The Security Council responded by unanimously adopting a resolution on Dec. 23 after two months of tough negotiations imposing sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend enrichment. It ordered all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs and to freeze assets of 10 key Iranian companies and 12 individuals related to those programs.

The council warned it would adopt further nonmilitary sanctions if Iran refused to comply and that is what members will now be considering.

During negotiations on the December sanctions resolution, the U.S. administration pushed for tougher penalties but Russia and China, which both have strong commercial ties to Tehran, and Qatar, across the Persian Gulf from Iran, balked.

To get their votes, the resolution dropped a ban on international travel by Iranian officials involved in nuclear and missile development and specified exactly which items and technologies were banned.

Several council diplomats have stressed the importance of maintaining council unity on a new resolution — even if means sacrificing tougher sanctions.

Stressing the importance of unity, U.S. deputy ambassador Jackie Sanders said Thursday "we do need to ratchet up the pressure and Iran needs to see an international community that stays coordinated and showing common purpose to have them stop what they're doing in developing nuclear weapons."

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy echoed the importance, saying, "unity and firmness are ... the only effective instruments we have to get Iran to turn toward the international community, and away from isolation."

"We support a second resolution, to be passed unanimously by the Security Council, to continue sanctions," he said.

Two diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because negotiations haven't even started, spoke of an "incremental" strengthening of sanctions in a new resolution to ensure that unity is preserved.

Diplomats said Thursday that new measures under consideration include a mandatory travel ban against individuals on the U.N. list, new individuals and companies subject to sanctions, additional prohibited items, economic measures such as a ban on export guarantees to Iran, and an expansion of the nuclear embargo to an arms embargo.

The permanent council members believe the initial sanctions have had some positive effects. Iran now says it wants negotiations, though it still refuses to suspend enrichment.

Whether new sanctions can bring Tehran to comply with the council's demands remains to be seen.

"It's Iran's refusal to talk which right now has gotten Iran in a lot of hot water," said Burns, the U.S. State Department official. "Iran is increasingly isolated, and we hope Iran is going to choose negotiations."
What is with this jackass Iranian president? They are just asking for a conflict.

it seems like every month Iran ignores a UN demand and then the UN says it is going to impose sanctions. Are tehre any sanctions on Iran as of now?

Might be something in this, or nothing in this, away up at the top of the thread the link to CNN suggested that Iranian or Iranian trained people attacked US units, tho how u could know were these people were trained or by who, is beyond me. What they meant was that they were using Iranian explosives, which has more kick than the fertiliser and coffee grinder variety. This is just a smoke screen once again by the Pentagon boys to up the ante on Iran,I guess if insurgents were using US munitions there wouldnt be a word about it. Tho some people have short memorys, remember this is CNN, you know the ultra liberal one which every die hard Republican refused to watch during the mid terms, cause they didnt like the reporting, or was that the other CNN.

you cant prove therey were iranians becasue they dont wear uniforms. It is pretty eay to fight when you dont have to folow the rules. Thats why this war is bullshit. The west is expected to fight by he rules but our enemies are not.

you cant prove therey were iranians becasue they dont wear uniforms. It is pretty eay to fight when you dont have to folow the rules. Thats why this war is bullshit. The west is expected to fight by he rules but our enemies are not.
Quite true. We're just expected to "give up" and do nothing because they don't play by the rules. That, and we can't wage this war in the proper fashion because the Europeans and bleeding hearts would scream bloody murder if we did.

Well seeing you Republican guys believe anything that suits your own agenda,tell me this,were we going with is, because the rest of the world cant stand back and allow a handful of right wing religious extremeists drag the world into a full scale conflict. So like I said, weres the white house running with this.

Are tehre any sanctions on Iran as of now?

I believe they're on double-secret probation.

They are gradually being cut out of the financial system i.e they don't have access to the interbank transfer system. As such there access to banking credit facilities is diminished as well. their are sanctions on some types of industrial equipment as well.

As to where it's all going. It's way of putting pressure on them. The business community is up in arms about the prospect and impact of sanctions. Khomeinei is distancing himself and the mullahs from ahdmidinejad. It's a way of letting them know that their activity is not cost or pain free.

Well seeing you Republican guys believe anything that suits your own agenda,tell me this,were we going with is, because the rest of the world cant stand back and allow a handful of right wing religious extremeists drag the world into a full scale conflict. So like I said, weres the white house running with this.
I've repeatedly answered that question, and apparently, it's fallen on deaf ears.

That aside, the only religious extremists I've seen are the ones who rule the Middle East, who hide behind innocent people, who set bombs off in supermarkets (not to mention in places like Spain, et al, thus scaring the Spaniards into ousting their entire government), and.....oh yeah, that's right...the ones who fly fucking planes into buildings. I almost forgot that one.

"Right wing religious extremists", Paul??? Give me a fucking break. :rolleyes:

One caveat, my friend: become a Muslim now, and you too can avoid all the religious extremism coming from America. If you did that, then I'd be willing to bet the scimitar-carrying rationalists from Iran will probably let you live. Unless you speak out against them, that is...

Fear not, though - with the Muslims in tow, maybe the Europeans and the rest of the world can unite to thwart our effort to kill everyone on the planet.