Skip to main content

As far as Iran goes and what the people will do I think the American people have no clue as to what they up against in Bush and this fascist Military Corporate Empire.
This is one of my frustrations with The Media and such. The people themselves have no clue what's going on. Dean, Clinton, Obama and others support a strike on Iran. The people are definitely against it but I haven't see any polls on how Americans feel about a war with Iran. The corporate media is filled with fear and distortions as they once again beat the war drums.

What Bush attacks I fear they will do nothing. They will be angry and concenred but the media will reassure them that everything is OK and we need to strike Iran for our safety. The government is slowly clamping down on our rights and dissent and they will eventually reinstate the draft. One day the people will wake up and it will be too late.

Hopefully I am wrong and they will react more deliberately but still, people need to get educated!! Wake Up!
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Quarrles:
Good topic PBA. I don't think that there will be any choice about a conflict with Iran. Hopefully it can be curtailed early and above all NOT UNILATERAL!



Yep, I think you're right! Bush and the republicans love war! Oh, do you think they will start the draft back? I think they will have to if we go into two wars. thanks!
quote:
Originally posted by Quarrles:
Sadly my sense tells me that a war against Iran will not be a ground war, that negates a reinstatement of the draft.
Even more horrific is the possibility, very real, of a nuclear confrontation.
All this over oil.


Why is the people putting trust to Bush ON IRAN when he lie about (wmd)IRAQ? are the people still sleeping or they just think the media tells the truth?
It's All About Iran- by Justin Raimondo

http://antiwar.com/justin/

January 15, 2007
It's All About Iran
Washington wants war…
by Justin Raimondo
As American troops storm what is, or was, an Iranian consulate – at least that's what the Iraqi government calls it, in spite of American denials – and the president accuses Tehran of arming and aiding Iraqi insurgents, the answer to the question "Why are we in Iraq?" should begin to dawn on even the dullest. The answer: Iran. We're in Iraq so we can go after the mullahs in Tehran, and, perhaps, those other Ba'athists in Syria.

All indications point to a strike at the Iranians before Bush leaves office. The appointment of a Navy guy, Adm. William J. "Fox" Fallon, at present head of the U.S. Pacific Command, to oversee U.S. operations in the Middle East, is widely seen as a sign that war with Iran is on the table, if not yet a sure thing. A U.S. attack on Iran would be a naval and air operation, and Fallon, a former deputy director for operations with Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Riyadh, is surely qualified for the job. As Pat Buchanan put it, "What Fallon does not know about securing streets, he does know about taking out targets from the air and keeping sea lanes open in a time of war."

Seymour Hersh reported on the gathering storm over Iran last year, and now we may have more concrete evidence that something big is afoot. Laura Rozen, writing in The American Prospect, says that a presidential "finding," or perhaps a secret White House directive may have been issued:

"There is evidence that, while Bush probably has not signed such a finding regarding Iran, he has recently done so regarding Iranian-supported Hezbollah in Lebanon; further, there is evidence that he may have signed an executive order or national security presidential directive regarding a new, more aggressive policy on Iran. Such directives are not required to be reported to Congress – they are more in the realm of the president communicating to authorized people inside the administration his expectations for a policy."

And the noise level coming from the pro-war peanut gallery is getting louder: Israel's lobby in the U.S. has long pushed for aggressive American action against the supposedly nuke-seeking mullahs, and an Israeli general, Oded Tira, recently came out explicitly with the thrust of the Israeli campaign:

"President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and U.S. newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure.

"We must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran. We should also approach European countries so that they support American actions in Iran, so that Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again."

The Lobby won't have to lean too hard on the Democratic Party, as Chairman Howard Dean made all too clear on Hardball the other night:
"Chris Matthews: Will your party stand up against a war with Iran? It looks like the president is sort of edging towards military action against Iran?

"Howard Dean: You know the great shame, among many shames, of going into Iraq, was we picked the wrong enemy. Iran is a danger. We've got our troops pinned down in the wrong place. Saddam Hussein was a terrible person, but not a danger to the United States. Iran is a danger. Obviously, I don't think there's much stomach among the American people for a war with Iran given what's gone on for the last three and a half years in Iraq, but we are clearly going to have to stand up to Iran.

"CM: Does that mean attack them? Are we going to commit an act of war against Iran?

"HD: I think there's absolutely no stomach for that whatsoever either in the Congress or among the American people after what's been going on the last three and a half years in Iraq."

So the official Democratic Party spokesman's line on the crisis in the Middle East goes something like this: Gee, it's too bad we're stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, when the real imperative is to attack Iran. We're in the wrong war – and, thanks to George W. Bush, the American people have "no stomach" for attacking what amounts to a genuine threat.

You'll notice, if you follow the link and read the whole quote, how Dean wimped out in the end, only agreeing with the Bushies' rush to war as far as imposing sanctions. However, you can bet Dean and his fellow Democrats, especially presidential wannabes and the congressional leadership, are not about to stand up to the War Party when the bombs begin to fall on Tehran.

For months, Antiwar.com has been reporting growing indications of a U.S. strike on Iran, and certainly such a move, contra Dean, is politically doable. After all, Dean and his fellow Democrats won't say boo about it, except, perhaps, to chide them for not doing it soon enough – and certainly Gen. Tira won't have to push Hillary all that much, since her present position is more hawkish than the Bush administration's. (Speaker Nancy Pelosi is no piker when it comes to Iran, either).

In the end, events on the ground in Iraq and environs won't determine if and when we go to war with Tehran: domestic politics is the determining factor, and, as Chairman Dean has shown, the conditions couldn't be better as far as the War Party is concerned.

In this context, at least, the "surge" begins to make some sense – especially if, as can be expected, it is a "long surge" carried out by an administration that likes to push the envelope (and meets little resistance in doing so). An attack on Iran will be centered around the Persian Gulf, but is bound to have reverberations on the ground in Iraq. A "surge" – 20,000 U.S. troops, and possibly more – would buttress American redoubts for the inevitable backlash and reinforce our defenses against a flanking counterattack.

The "antiwar" Democrats are way behind the times: they are still screaming about Iraq, when Iran is the real issue – and it's one they are just as bad on, if not worse, than the Republicans. Which means that the long-suffering American people are not about to find relief from this endless war anytime soon – unless, of course, it is in the form of some as yet undiscovered political maverick who will rise out of the miasma of American politics and save us from both wings of the War Party.
PBA, you and I know the answers to this, and many other political disasters currently befalling America. Please don't tell any of the others though.

When a person becomes a candidate for election to the US Senate or House of Representatives he or she can, and does in many cases, spend hundreds of millions of $$$$$$ for the priviledge to serve their fellow Americans.

The job pays $ 165,000 a year. Who in the their right mind would spend such vast sums for such little money? AN HONEST person. Yea Right.

Let's not forget the US system of democracy.

Executive-commander in chief
Legislative-creates and passes laws
Judicial-upholds and defines said laws
The President is just a glorified CEO, nothing more.
The Legislature, senators and congressmen create our statutes, they are not doing their jobs. Just that simple. Period
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
To your question on the topic: I do not think we will have a choice.


There are not a lot of good options with Iran and we have already exhausted most of the peaceful ones. In the end they are going to have to be stopped because they are not responsible and rational enough to hold so much sway over such an important region.

If you think about it we won the Iraq war. The war we are currently fighting is with Iran. The sooner we realize this the better. Until then there can be no solution in Iraq.
quote:
Originally posted by Quarrles:
PBA, you and I know the answers to this, and many other political disasters currently befalling America. Please don't tell any of the others though.

When a person becomes a candidate for election to the US Senate or House of Representatives he or she can, and does in many cases, spend hundreds of millions of $$$$$$ for the priviledge to serve their fellow Americans.

The job pays $ 165,000 a year. Who in the their right mind would spend such vast sums for such little money? AN HONEST person. Yea Right.

Let's not forget the US system of democracy.

Executive-commander in chief
Legislative-creates and passes laws
Judicial-upholds and defines said laws
The President is just a glorified CEO, nothing more.
The Legislature, senators and congressmen create our statutes, they are not doing their jobs. Just that simple. Period



I say, you are on it, you must not show me up to bad here with all this education you got. hang in there!
Ombud Concurs on NewsHour's Iraq Panel
'I'm with viewers' on imbalance, Getler says

1/16/07

PBS ombud Michael Getler (1/11/07), responding to viewers who shared FAIR's concerns about the balance of a recent NewsHour discussion of Iraq policy (1/8/07; FAIR Action Alert, 1/10/07), wrote that "I'm with the viewers on this
one."

The segment, which featured two U.S. senators advocating for George W. Bush's "surge" policy along with two legislators who offered lukewarm reservations,
was criticized by FAIR and by viewers for its limited range of debate. "I believe that you did a great disservice to your viewers by limiting the scope of debate by your choice of senators, excluding any who would voice any serious criticism and slanting the panel in favor of those who support escalation," wrote Ian Brewer of Bloomington, Indiana in a letter printed in Getler's "Ombudsman's Mailbag" column.

Viewers also took issue with the NewsHour's inclusion of Joseph Lieberman, who was identified as an "Independent Democrat," giving the superficial impression of an even partisan balance on the panel. "Sen. Lieberman won re-election with Republican votes," wrote Roldo Bartimole of Cleveland Heights, Ohio. "He acts as a Republican and should not be offered as someone who has opinions other than Republican, particularly on Iraq."

Getler, whose observations (1/5/07) about the narrow range of debate on PBS were cited in FAIR's action alert, wrote that although in his view the partisan imbalance was not as egregious as it first seemed, since one of the two Republicans featured expressed reservations about the administration's Iraq policy, on the whole he concurred with such viewers' complaints:


"This was a poorly constructed panel, in my view, and its imbalance stood out dramatically...because it was a debate over a crucial subject on the eve of one of the president's most crucial and controversial decisions. For dedicated NewsHour viewers, it also seemed to betray the normal care they take with such discussions. For my money, it also turned out to be the kind of discussion that doesn't break through anything in terms of public understanding, or explore much other than the roughly centrist views that everyone knows about, or the well-telegraphed administration view."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3031
“To initiate a war of aggresion…is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” - Nuremberg Tribunal


=
"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." : Aesop - (c. 550 B.C.) legendary Greek fabulist Source: The Wolf and the Lamb
quote:
Originally posted by PBA:
Bush worried vote will highlight split

The White House said on Tuesday a planned congressional resolution against President George W. Bush's U.S. troop increase in Iraq could send a signal to the world that America is divided on the war.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/news2/2007/01/bush_worried_vo.html



I have seen Bush twice on TV since Sunday, ... and that man REALLY needs someone to do his talking for him... he literally cannot get a while sentence out without stuttering, or going OFF the course of what he is talking about...

I am getting older, and I do the same thing sometimes... but for God's sake, I am not on National TV where 70% of the people watching me DISLIKE me strongly... lol
If we go to war with Iran,....Iraq will be peanuts compared to what we would face. It will be a bloodbath.

Second, Israel will surely get suxed into the mix.

Third, it will go nuclear IMHO.....

Fourth, oil prices will shoot to record levels the like has never been seen before.

Fifth, I think the Gulf states will support a war against Iran because Iran is Persian, and because Iran is predominately Shi'ite. Those two factors will go in our favor.
Why don't we just pull out of the middle east, and plan the war and takeover of Mexico. It would save billions of dollars we are wasting on oil or at least that is what I read in the forum.
Mexico has huge oil deposits that only have been barely touched. We could depose of Fox and have it all to ourselves.
Then we could tell the jew nation to find someone else to send you billions to keep your Jesus the Christ unbelieving nation afloat. The results are endless.
And because of the war,we could declare mility law. require English to be the one and only language. Learn it or else.Classes could be held daily. If one is caught speaking spanish the punishment would be carried out the same day.
The Monroe doctrine could be the law that backs us up. Then we could develope a plan that would help us inforce enimete domain. The rest of south america would be a cake walk.
Then we could have all of our troops home.


What a fairy tail, if anyone was offended, to bad we all know this was just a joke.

but some day......
quote:
Originally posted by themax:
Why don't we just pull out of the middle east, and plan the war and takeover of Mexico. It would save billions of dollars we are wasting on oil or at least that is what I read in the forum.
Mexico has huge oil deposits that only have been barely touched. We could depose of Fox and have it all to ourselves.
Then we could tell the jew nation to find someone else to send you billions to keep your Jesus the Christ unbelieving nation afloat. The results are endless.
And because of the war,we could declare mility law. require English to be the one and only language. Learn it or else.Classes could be held daily. If one is caught speaking spanish the punishment would be carried out the same day.
The Monroe doctrine could be the law that backs us up. Then we could develope a plan that would help us inforce enimete domain. The rest of south america would be a cake walk.
Then we could have all of our troops home.


What a fairy tail, if anyone was offended, to bad we all know this was just a joke.

but some day......


I hope you would consider joining the English class. Perhaps daily lessons might help. As you said, "learn it." Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by pba:
As far as Iran goes and what the people will do I think the American people have no clue as to what they up against in Bush and this fascist Military Corporate Empire.
This is one of my frustrations with The Media and such. The people themselves have no clue what's going on. Dean, Clinton, Obama and others support a strike on Iran. The people are definitely against it but I haven't see any polls on how Americans feel about a war with Iran. The corporate media is filled with fear and distortions as they once again beat the war drums.

What Bush attacks I fear they will do nothing. They will be angry and concenred but the media will reassure them that everything is OK and we need to strike Iran for our safety. The government is slowly clamping down on our rights and dissent and they will eventually reinstate the draft. One day the people will wake up and it will be too late.

Hopefully I am wrong and they will react more deliberately but still, people need to get educated!! Wake Up!

This may sound like I feel helpless, but nothing could be further from the truth. EIGHTEEN MONTHS AGO, IN GUARDED LANGUAGE, BUT CLEARLY REFRENCING THE POSSIBILITY OF A US INVASION OF IRAN, The Russian President Putin, and Chairman Hu of China released a joint statement INSISTING that interference with the internal affairs of independent nations CEASE IMMEDIATELY.
Iran does not pose any threat to the USA. Russia and China ARE NOT THREATENING UNILATERAL UNPROVOKED ATTACK ON ANYONE. But they HAVE clearly and BILATTERALY, laid out the provocation that MAY result in an attack.
Here's what Iran thinks about Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions. Even the Ayatollah is upset with him, and how crazy do you have to get with the rhetoric to go to far with the likes of the Ayatollah? I still don't trust the Chinese & Russians, but the Iranian people seem to be doing everything they can to get rid of him. Even the Iranian people question his nuclear programs.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3335628,00.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1764737/posts
quote:
Originally posted by stupid people suck:
The U.S. Government needs to not worry about the rest of the world because they cant even take care of the people in the United States,not to forget that the Mexicans are taking over our jobs and our country.


Yes, the Gov't is getting ready to drop the ball, yet AGAIN!!! Yay Bush, YAY Cheney... Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Shiroshi:
Here's what Iran thinks about Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions. Even the Ayatollah is upset with him, and how crazy do you have to get with the rhetoric to go to far with the likes of the Ayatollah? I still don't trust the Chinese & Russians, but the Iranian people seem to be doing everything they can to get rid of him. Even the Iranian people question his nuclear programs.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3335628,00.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1764737/posts


Shiroshi,
You have made history, refrenced a freerepublic.com article that I actually believed, and was glad for the message.
If I have not misplaced my trust, Iran is doing to Ahmadinejad what I think we in the US should be doing with the Christmas Tree (channuka bush) we have in the Oval Office.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:

Shiroshi,
You have made history, refrenced a freerepublic.com article that I actually believed, and was glad for the message.
If I have not misplaced my trust, Iran is doing to Ahmadinejad what I think we in the US should be doing with the Christmas Tree (channuka bush) we have in the Oval Office.



Far too many people forget that most of the things that happen on a large scale, are created by a very small number of people. The actions of a country aren't normally by the people, but by a few "great" people.

So often we think of the Iraqis, Iranians, Russians... so on and so forth. when the vast majority of those people, are just like the vast majority of us, concerned not about the global stage as much as whether their kids eat, safety, a place to live and the other things that fill the day to day lives of humans. So when you are thinking that the "Iranians" hate us and want to kill us, remember that their thoughts probably rarely wonder over to the US.

Unless you are totally obsessed with the war, I'm sure everyone here spends more time worrying about the kids and work than Iraq or Iran. The polls i've seen from Iraqis, say they are worried about unemployment, electricity, and police more than Americans.
quote:
Originally posted by Shiroshi:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:

Shiroshi,
You have made history, refrenced a freerepublic.com article that I actually believed, and was glad for the message.
If I have not misplaced my trust, Iran is doing to Ahmadinejad what I think we in the US should be doing with the Christmas Tree (channuka bush) we have in the Oval Office.



Far too many people forget that most of the things that happen on a large scale, are created by a very small number of people. The actions of a country aren't normally by the people, but by a few "great" people.

So often we think of the Iraqis, Iranians, Russians... so on and so forth. when the vast majority of those people, are just like the vast majority of us, concerned not about the global stage as much as whether their kids eat, safety, a place to live and the other things that fill the day to day lives of humans. So when you are thinking that the "Iranians" hate us and want to kill us, remember that their thoughts probably rarely wonder over to the US.

Unless you are totally obsessed with the war, I'm sure everyone here spends more time worrying about the kids and work than Iraq or Iran. The polls i've seen from Iraqis, say they are worried about unemployment, electricity, and police more than Americans.



Getting involved is the first and largest step. The Bush neocons, RWNs and sycophants rely on no one protesting too much, objecting too much or challenging them. While they will say the most outrageous things, they say Democrats love terrorist, terrorism and Osama bin-Forgotten.
Changing our approach in Iraq must go hand in hand with fixing a regional strategy that has been an abject failure. For three years, the Bush administration has hectored and threatened Iran and Syria, and unsurprisingly, they have both worked continuously to feed the fighting in Iraq. It's time for us to get serious about talking with our enemies. And it's time for us to redouble our efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is at the root of so many problems in the Middle East.
Its Ahmenejad that is expecting the 12th iman, Moses Jesus, and Abraham by 21 March to start a world war to establish the caliphate. Even the Ayatollah and some members of the Supreme Council are concerned. But, some of the twelvers are on the counsel as well. Fun may be had by all.

As to China, go back and check the territories she claims-- not just Taiwan. Also, claims Mongolia (a functioning democracy like Taiwan), a third of eastern Asian Russia, northeast India and numerous islands claimed by the Phillipines and Japan. In time she will want lebensraum and resources.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×