SOMEONE, PLEASE stop this MADMAN!!!! He is going to attack Iran!

[in_cog_ni_to]

Bush Raises Option of Using Force Against Iran
German Chancellor Opposes Use of Force


CRAWFORD, Texas (Aug. 13) - President Bush said he could consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear program.


But German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, one of the most prominent European opponents of the U.S.-led war on Iraq, told an election rally on Saturday the threat of force was not acceptable.<snip>


<snip>
Bush, speaking at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, was asked in the interview broadcast on Saturday whether possible options included the use of force.

"As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country," he told state-owned Israel Channel One television.<snip>


There's also a poll at the link. Please DU it!


http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050813072809990001

[madeline_con]

1. Gerhard Schroeder... "the threat of force was not acceptable"

Maybe European countries can put the economic squeeze on, and the old fool wll backdown.

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. My stomach is in knots from reading this.

The man is nuts. There's no 2 ways around it. Our country is being hijacked by a madman and his band of thieves. I'm sick. I cannot believe SOMEONE isn't stopping this shit!

[madeline_con]

Maybe yesterday's O'Hare incident was an attempt....

A pilot said the Prez's helicopter almost collided with him as he came in for a landing.

[madeline_con]

16. Here's the thread about O'Hare...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4336380&mesg_id=4336380

[cliss]

21. Now calm down Incognito.

I have NO doubts that Bush is lusting after Iran. You just mention the word "Iran" and his eyes get these crosses on them, like in the comics.

I have no doubts, like you, that President Cheney wants to do it. But it's him and which army?

We're seriously understaffed in Iraq. Afghanistan is the same way. We're losing both wars. RumsFailed is shuffling around US troops, but there really isn't much leeway. I believe we have 1.3 million active duty troops. Many of them are stationed around the world, but they can't really be deployed because that might cause more instability.

Here's how I look at it, using pluses and minuses. Reasons:
1) We've got the desire. Yeah. White foam hanging out of Bush's mouth. He wants that oil, all right.
2) We've got the bomb power. Sure, we've got enough nukes to blast that country into the Stone Age.
3) They've definitely got something we want - oil, Oil, OIL. Supposedly the world's #1 supply (not SA after all).

But -- it's not all Yellow Brick Road to Teheran: here are the minuses:
1) We lack the manpower. Just ain't got the people. Sorry, Dick.
2) We lack the support of other countries. Putin will NEVER allow us to go in there, and I do mean never. He's already sold a bunch of missiles to them. China will step in and say Halt.
3) The Iranians: they'll fight, and they'll fight hard. They have a big army, well-trained military. Mountainous country. Loyal population who'll fight.
4) Bush is losing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't underestimate this. Americans are throwing in the towel to this Clown. They've had it.

[punpirate]

37. Nothing you've said would preclude...

... a massive air strike, and continuing actions from the air. The Air Force and Navy are being lightly used these days (although bombing from the air still continues around Iraq), compared to full capacity.

Given the idiocy about rose petals and rice that accompanied the Iraq invasion, the neo-cons might well believe that such air attacks might encourage an overthrow of the current government in Iran, even though all assessments say exactly the opposite--that it would spur a nationalistic rally supporting the existing government.

The neo-cons genuinely believe that technological might makes right, and in our God-given right to remake the world in our own image. The generals know there are not enough soldiers to invade and occupy a country the size of Iran, nor enough soldiers to counter Iran's combined active-duty army and militias. But, that doesn't mean that some attack is not being contemplated at this moment.

Past experience is valid. When this president says the same things he did prior to the invasion of Iraq, in exactly the same words and phrases, attention to those words and what they mean is in order.

Cheers.

[cliss]

42. Well, you've got a point. I didn't assume that we're dealing

with a maniac. I was just looking at logistical constraints.
But really, if the US does bomb the crap out of Iran, what's the point?

After you incapacitate a country, don't you have to go in and "take it?" Like, march troops in there are do all the Winner/Loser stuff, like handcuff prisoners of war, stick your flag in the ground to show you "own" the place, and stuff like that.

Let's face it: owning countries is a lot of hard work. Right, George?

[punpirate]

47. Well, not exactly...

... not if you've got the CIA, military intelligence of all stripes, RRFs and Special Forces all in or near the country supporting the MEK in attempts to spur on an overthrow of the government. They don't want territory--they want puppet governments compliant to the wishes of the US (pretty much what the US had with the Shah in place prior to 1979).

Bush invaded Iraq because of the perception that it would be easy and because he thought it would be good for his image and his legend in posterity. The country effectively had no military after 1991 and after twelve years of sanctions and bombings.

The point is not access to oil--we already have that. The point, rather, is to obtain that oil at the cheapest cost to US multinationals. All one needs for that is a compliant Iranian government which de-nationalizes the oil fields and allows those multinationals to control the fields in exchange for small extraction royalties, as happened in 1953 through the efforts of British MI6 and the CIA.

Don't forget--the nephew of the Shah is biding his time, just outside of Washington, DC....

Cheers.

[serryjw]

45. Do you think......

Russia or China would fight AGAINST us on Iran's side?

[moodforaday]

55. Russia would certainly feel compelled to respond

They share a border with Iran. They have major interests there. There is no way Russia will stand idly by and watch bombs - or nukes! - dropped so close to them.

[FreedomAngel82]

39. Wasn't there a book a while back

called "On the Couch With Bush" or something like that? I think it was written by a guy who was supposed to do a biography book but I think he just wrote a book about Bush in general and told how he really does have mental problems.

[Lost-in-FL]

2. Let him do it...

I don't give a shit if he does it, I should feel sorry for the troops but at times I am just so numb of all this nonsense, the killing, the lies, that sometimes I am just numb.

[KyndCulture]

4. sounds a whole lot like "I don't care"

not something I want to see.

[madeline_con]

23. I got it....

.

[burrowowl]

8. Welcome to DU, Lost-inFL!

Let's just say that if he wants to do it he will.
Hopefully, Americans will soon get a spine, gas prices may do it.

[still_one]

9. you better feel sorry for your children, yourself, and future generations

It won't just be Iran, Russia and China will feel threatened by the U.S. controlling the world oil supply, and this could escalate into something far worse

In fact alliances are already forming between China and Russia

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. That's so true. China and Russia just signed a joint agreement

to play war games together. My G-d. This frightening as hell to me.

[still_one]

28. it should be, and it frigtens me also

they will use the justification that they MUST do it to "prevent" Iran from get nuclear capability, but instead of engaging in dialog which is two way, this administration "TELLS" countries what to do, and that is what they consider dialog

We had all better hope that a 9/11 event does NOT occur before 2006, because the scape goat will be Iran

If Iran is attacked, they will launch silk worms directly at Israel, which will bring them into the war. The majority Shiites in Iraq will not stand by while their brothers in Iran are being attacked. They will uprise against the U.S. forces in Iraq, and create a unity amoung all Muslims, Sunni and Shiite throughout the Arab world

[madeline_con]

31. Bush is forgetting one basic point....

We don't have enough people to take over the world.

We're only 300 milion. He wants to take on billons of people.

[mongo]

36. It doesn't take billions of people

to deploy tactical nuclear weapons.

[madeline_con]

41. true....

He's looking to take over, huh?

GEEZ, if he wasn't such a brainless twit, Amurca would be a safer place!

[still_one]

43. once that starts

you can kiss everything goodbye

[madeline_con]

29. If Russia and China make a move.....

even the Chip in Chief will be forced to back off.

His puppeteers won't let him be stupid to say "Bring it on!" to that.

[Lost-in-FL]

49. I have no kids...

and without plans for them.

[madeline_con]

19. Let HIM go, if he's so keen on it.

And he can take all his geezer friends along for a little getaway to Points East!

[Autumn Colors]

22. Gee thanks

NOT!!! I really feel like letting loose a whole string of obscenities at you right now, but I won't.

I posted this awhile back, but I was an AFS exchange student to Iran in 1978. I lived with a not-very-religious Shi'ite muslim family, most of whom still live in Tehran (and are STILL not-very-religious despite the regime).

Thanks a whole f**k of a lot for saying you don't give a shit if Bush decides to drop bombs on a place I considered my home for months and destroys the homes of and possibly kills people that I consider to be like family to me.

Yeah, you're numb and it's just words, words, words to you now.

You know what? I don't give a shit that you're numb.

I was out there protesting before and during the Iraq invasion/occupation, but it was mainly my peaceful ideals at work. This time it's personal. There are faces, places, songs, meals, memories attached to this one and if he launches an attack on Iran, I am going to raise hell like DU has never seen. Trust me. You will see me in the media because I will be seen and heard this time around.

Michele Anderson
Monroe, Connecticut

[madeline_con]

27. You didn't get the post....

It was about desperation and numbness, not wishing any harm to your friends.

A lot of us have people we love in the Middle East, and they're not all in the U.S. military. This is very hard for everyone. Fighting amongst ourselves is not going to help.

[pacalo]

35. Exactly.

Some are too eager to jump on a soap box at times.

Desperation, disgust, & helplessness because we have no representation is what Lost-in-Fla meant.

[Autumn Colors]

46. Well excuse me....

Well, gee.... I'm sorry that this particular subject hits a nerve with me. (/sarcasm)

Maybe I should refrain from posting my opinion or my point of view (having lived there). Funny, I thought that was what these boards were for.

And if you mean my statement about speaking out in the media as an American who was an exchange student over there. Fine. I'll just cow down and keep my mouth shut. Is that any better for you?

[pacalo]

48. Discussions with opposing views *are* what this board's all about.

Stating your opposing view peppered with personal insults isn't effective in getting people to see your side.

And no, I wasn't referring to your "statement about speaking out in the media as an American who was an exchange student over there."

Get real.

I was referring to these comments you made:

I really feel like letting loose a whole string of obscenities at you right now, but I won't.

Thanks a whole f**k of a lot for saying you don't give a shit

You know what? I don't give a shit that you're numb.

[Lost-in-FL]

52. Well...

Glad everything is under control... Sorry if my comments caused any problems (I am used to it I guess).

[pacalo]

53. I saw that you were new to DU...

& didn't want you to be discouraged from posting.

I understood that your post was meant to be sarcastic, considering the helplessness & disgust we all feel in regard to the outrageous misleadership forced down our throats.

Just so you know, DU offers a smiley icon for "sarcasm" - it's found in the "Smilies lookup table" in the message options. :)

Welcome to DU. :hi:

You, too, Autumn Colors :hi:

[still_one]

44. the problem is people here do NOT understand what bombs do to the flesh

The MSM keeps the pictures of the civillians hidden

we don't want the public to know what is being done in our name

After the nuclear bombs was droped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the pictures were keep from the public

The insensitivity is from ignorance, because if they ever saw what these weapons do to people, they couldn't approve and still be part of the human race

[LostInAnomie]

32. Welcome to DU!

Nice screen name.

[tabasco]

5. Well, now we know how it feels to live in a "rogue state."

Now that we have "The Bush Doctrine" (Jesus Christ that's an absurd term - as if the dim bulb ever had an original thought in his life), we can pretty much invade anybody for any trumped-up reason. Good for Halliburton, bad for the poor slobs that have to fight it. The real Bush doctrine is kissing the ass of the country that attacked us on 9-11 - Saudi Arabia.



Corporate profits,epecially oil profits, are through the roof. This is why our troops continue to get killed and maimed.

[yorkiemommie1]

6. i emailed the DNC this morning

and I'm sure they'll get right on it.

:sarcasm:

[Larkspur]

12. You should have emailed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They set policy

not Dean or the DNC.

[DanCa]

7. Can we refer to iranians as post embryos?

No federally funded wars Frack it.

[kentuck]

10. But who will stand up in hte Congress and say.....

the emperor has no clothes. If he says he going to drop a small strategic nuclear weapon on Iran, then I fear they would say nothing. That is the dire straits we find ourselves in.

[nine23]

11. Call me naive, but...

I still find it mind-boggling that even 33% of Americans just fucking LOVE the idea of bombing the fuck out of innocent people, even though at this juncture Iran is still YEARS away from having any real weapons.

Oh, I get it. Diplomacy is a nasty, "probably French" word.


Current poll results:

Impose sanctions 37%
Use of force 33%
More talks 31%

[Fovea]

17. They still think of 911 as an unprovoked attack

As opposed to blowback from a former cold war buddy.

[Mr_Spock]

20. The question is seedy too because 67% are against use of force

...divided between "Impose Sanctions" and "More Talks"

Anyway, if he attacks Iran he will likely be deposed.

[Lost-in-FL]

51. If you add up the numbers...

It is very unpopular. I do not see it likely. We did not invaded the USSR knowing they had nucs so why should we do something about Iran? I doesn't make any sense.

[SunDrop23]

14. Scott Ritter has said we are already there.

[still_one]

15. The problem is how could we stop it

how will he justify it?

create a 9/11 event, or crisis that they will blame on Iran. The democrats in Congress will fall in line, and democracy and the world as we know it will cease to exist

In 2000 and 2004 the number of people who voted was dismal at best

They don't care, and if the same the occurs in 2006 it will be too late

[Fridays Child]

18. If this is similar to how "using force" was a "last resort" in Iraq...

...there is NO doubt that he will invade Iran.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. Do any of you find it surprising that the "attack Iran" bullshit started

AFTER Bolton was installed at the UN??? I don't. It was what? a day, 2 days after Bolton was installed that the BULLSHIT Iran stories started? How will we ever stop this crap?

[seabeyond]

25. after seeing u.s. invade iraq, why wouldnt all countries want nukes

it makes no sense whatsoever for a country to work with us and not aquire nukes. we dont invade the ones that have nukes to protect them from us. we invade the countries that dont have them. why wouldnt all countries work torwards nukes, now that u.s. has gone over the line

and who are we to say no to them, they cant

[IowaGuy]

26. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, depending on how you look at it....

Our military is stretched so thin right now, it would be total lunacy to take after Iran right now...that won't stop *, but I'm gettin' the vibe the military is less than enthralled w/ his leadership and nobody in Congress is really following his lead anymore, they all are basically just a bunch of private contractors right now....with his slipping approval ratings, I'm guessing this ain't gonna happen...the only people really supporting this are the cowardly mouth-breathin' freepers that won't volunteer to go over there anyway....so we're probably pretty safe for now.

[Lost-in-FL]

50. I totally agree...

I think he is testing the waters and see how many idiots like the idea of attacking Iran.

[mongo]

30. I've had enough of his Bullshit

Our country has been hijacked by the military-industrial complex.

It's time to get into the streets.

[Rex]

33. All options are on the table.

Same shit, different country. Wish someone would stop this madness before we all die.

[orleans]

34. and then there was this:

"Cheney’s orders first surfaced in an article by Philip Geraldi in the Aug 1, 2005, issue of American Conservative. Geraldi was unavailable for comment, but excerpts of the article went on to say:

“Vice President Cheney’s office has specifically told the Pentagon that the military should be prepared for an attack on Iran in the immediate aftermath of ‘another 9-11.’ ”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/020805nukeiran.htm

[FreedomAngel82]

38. I remember reading not long ago

that a lot of the Bilderberg group don't want Iran for whatever reason. They were all against Iraq but too many of them weren't for Iran. I don't know why not. :shrug: But it seems as though "management" doesn't want it to happen while Bush and the gang does. :popcorn:

[Lasher]

40. All According to Plan

Since before Dubya was installed by the Supreme Court, the neocons have planned to invade Iran, right after Iraq. All part of the Project for a New American Century crap. Rummy & Cheney, as longime neocons, will forge ahead with their PNAC vision, no matter what.

We must at least win control of the Senate next year.

[in_cog_ni_to]

54. They needed Iraq so they could have staging areas to attack Iran.

They didn't build 14 military bases in Iraq for no reason. And didn't I read that Halliburton got another NO BID contract to build 10 more military bases? 24 !!! military bases paid for with OUR tax dollars. They're there for a reason. The reason has always been to attack Iran or Syria or both. The PNAC agenda is moving right along..on schedule. :scared:

From April 15, 2003

Lawrence Eagleburger (BBC interview, via Best of the Blogs)
"...I can only tell you….maybe I’ll be made of fool of when I say this but I can’t even imagine that and I’ve only recently heard somebody else say that this is a possibility. I just don’t think that anybody who says that truly understands the American people. You saw the furor that went on in this country before the President got sufficient support to do this. We’re just not built like that. Whether anybody is prepared to admit it or not, this is still a democracy and public opinion and the public still on these issues rules. If George Bush decided that he was going to turn the troops loose on Syria now, and Iran after that, he would last in office for about 15 minutes. You’re talking to somebody who frankly wishes we could knock Syria around a bit because I think they have been absolutely outrageous for years in terms of their support for terrorism. But, because I happen to believe that, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. If President Bush were to try it now, even I would feel that he ought be impeached. You can’t get away with that sort of thing with this democracy. It’s ridiculous."


http://www.compassiongate.com/voices_media/cc610.htm


Let's hope and pray Eagleburger is right!