God help us, they are going to go into Iran!

[debbierlus]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration

From the report:

In a 49-page national security report, the president reaffirmed the strike-first, or pre-emptive policy he first outlined in 2002. Diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons, Bush said.

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur — even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," Bush wrote.

"When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. ... The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same."

These lunatics are going to start world war III. OMG!

[Mythsaje]

1. Is it Bastille Day yet?

"under long-standing principles of self-defense..."

Oh, yeah. Try using THAT argument in a murder trial. "Well, Your Honor, I knew he was thinking about buying a gun and he doesn't like me, so I thought I'd just go over there and shoot him before he got the chance to shoot me."

That's self-defense these days, is it? Nice to know.

[RPM]

143. hmmmm - i'll try that one

:eyes:

[liberal N proud]

2. CNN: President restates first-strike war doctrine

We are going no doubt!
His report today is nothing more than a rehash from 2002

From the article:

Titled "National Security Strategy," the report summarizes Bush's plan for protecting America and directing U.S. relations with other nations. It is an updated version of a report Bush issued in 2002.

In the earlier report a year after the September 11 attacks, Bush underscored his administration's adoption of a pre-emptive policy, marking the end of a deterrent military strategy that dominated the Cold War.

The latest report makes it clear Bush hasn't changed his mind, even though no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

"When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. ... The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same," Bush wrote.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/16/bush.security.ap/index.html

[Marie26]

71. So why is this in the news now?

I got a bad feeling about all this.

[harpo]

107. because he is fixing to attack IRAN, call congress and say NO!

[Arugula Latte]

125. Yeah, that Congress sure loves to listen to us!

Aaaaaargh! :grr:

[Arugula Latte]

127. P.S. My "mad face" is meant for Congress, not you ...n/t

[BlueEyedSon]

149. And that unary executive sure loves to listen to Congress!

[Imagevision]

142. The lower his numbers drop - the closer we get to bombing Iran

and undoubtedly it will happen BEFORE November elections, they can't afford to lose the house & senate.

[Marie26]

146. Because Bush wants to see his numbers hit zero?

Honestly, I think it would be political suicide for Bush to try to get into another war. People don't trust him anymore & know how stretched our military is. His numbers have been spiraling downward because the public is sick of the war in Iraq - they won't cheer him into Iran, IMO, no matter how much propaganda Bush tries.

[katty]

82. Start Iraq Airstrikes today and Prep Americans for IranAttack

[Canuckistanian]

129. It's called the Bushit Doctrine

Carefully crafted one weekend over at Dick's mansion when eveyone was pissed on Jack Daniels and horse tranquilizers.

[Triana]

3. PNAC - They've had this plan for at least a decade...

...and used 9-11 as a segway to launch it:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

1. Iraq (and that invasion was planned WELL BEFORE 9-11)
2. Iran
3. Syria
4. ...

IF WE CAN'T GET THESE MURDEROUS, WARMONGERING, POWER-HUNGRY BASTARDS ***OUT*** OF OUR GOVERNMENT, WE ARE DOOMED TO WW III. No other way around it.

[debbierlus]

5. This is terrifying.

Are these people the spawn of satan?

[Triana]

20. IMO, yes (n/t)

[FatDave]

58. Well...

I don't believe in Satan. These people embody absolutely everything that's most vile and evil about humanity. And they embrace it.

[Occulus]

69. There's a book I once read a bit about;

I think the name of the book was "The Pattern" (I only read a couple reviews and a sample chapter online); it's about a death experience a woman had (after hearing part of her story, I've dropped the 'near' when discussing such experiences people have had), and at one point she descibes 'dark souls' or some phrase like that, which supposedly do exactly what you describe when they return to Earth for a go at life.

I don't know about all that, but some people do exhibit the traits of what she describes. Antisocial, me-me-me, live my way, use your system for myself.

It's all about them, and nobody else. Dark souls, indeed.

[Ufomammut]

24. Exactly - are more dems finally waking up to what....

...us "tinfoilers" have been warning about for the past five years?

Seriously, I know people who consider themselves lefties/dems who think that the PNAC is "tinfoil." Oh.......kaaaayyyy then....

Good luck with that denial.

[Triana]

33. send them to the PNAC site...

....the 'resolution' to dominate the world, invade other countries, and control its resources (well whatever ones the US wants) is right there, and signed by Rumsfeld, et al - most of the cronies that are in the cabal right now - and who have had this plan and been working on it for years.

It's pretty undeniable. But then, some people might want to see only what they want to see...

[file83]

70. And it isn't going to stop with Iraq - We are seeing New Orleans police

force being dismantled and replaced with DynCorp "Security Forces" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11800942/) :argh:

We are seeing the "Trans Texas Corridor" toll road program being set up and sold of to a private Corporation (foreign to boot). This is part of the control grid the elites want to set up so that travel (even by foot!) will no longer be free. Not to mention the entire "privatization" plans of Corporate Fascists to take over Public Lands! Opposition blogs have been risen up and people are pissed off at this plan to give away our American roads.

But these (and dozens and dozens of other plans) are all things that people scoffed at 4 years ago. People said "you're paranoid" and "there is no evidence" or the most common "nice conspiracy theory".

*sigh* I wish it were.

[MrPrax]

53. BS...

It's the Carter Doctrine...the PNAC is irrelevent.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

I am sure Neo-Cons read it as well...and don't write back some horseshit about how that was the some 'cold war' thing or some nonsense...

[Ufomammut]

57. I realize that in the world of tinfoil....

There are endless pissing matches between people whose views need to be 'right' instead of the next guys ....however, I hardly see how a decades old reference somehow disqualifies the mission statements of the PNAC as "irrelevent" in terms of trying to get more average people to understand that there is an underlying strategy that has nothing to do with the "liberdy and freedumb" lies our press uses to cover its true aims and goals.

[MrPrax]

61. LOL...

too much...

"how a decades old reference"--shit Bush thinks your Constitution is decades old as well...LOL...is he wearing a tinfoil hat too...ROLF

Your the one pushing the PNAC--I am hardly engaging in 'tinfoil' logic here when pointing to a central plank in American foreign policy that was INSPIRED by the Iranian Revolution in the first place...

Too much...

[Ufomammut]

63. Not what I meant

The fact is, when one ventures around online through the various "underground"/dissident sites/forums/blogs, etc, there is a very noticable tendency for people with different takes and speculations to be at each others throats: "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!"
...and back and forth to no end.

Believe me, I completely understand the frustration of trying to get average people who have been conditioned to dismiss disturbing institutional analysis as "conspiracy theory" to see that there is a lot more to the picture, but you're clearly emphasizing your own knowledge of esoteric facts and placing greater value to that instead of maybe thinking, "well, the one came before the other, but given so few even know about that, it's a better starting point than nothing."

Understand? I mean, if all you're interested in is berating people over their lack of knowledge instead of trying to steer them toward it, then that just seems like a rather asshole-ish endeavor.

[Occulus]

73. Actually the very name PNAC goes waaay back

all the way back to just after the second World War, if memory serves. Life magazine published an article in I think 1941 titled "The American Century". A snip, from an article quoting the one by Henry Luce in that issue of Life; taken from http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/649 paragraph 5:

"The fundamental trouble with Americans has been, and is, that whereas their nation became in the 20th century the most powerful and the most vital nation in the world, nevertheless Americans were unable to accommodate themselves spiritually and practically to that fact. Hence they have failed to play their part as a world power--a failure which has had disastrous consequences for themselves and for all mankind. And the cure is this: to accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit."

Here's another article on Luce and fascism: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/site_packages/3125ccf_luce.html
edited to add, that site seems somewhat fishy. Here's one from PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/luce_h.html
and then there's this: http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/rc_055000_lucehenry.htm

A snip from that last:

"Both the style and substance of Luce journalism was under constant attack. "Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind," Wolcott Gibbs wrote in a parody of Time. Adjectives in Luce magazines were regarded warily by people in public life. Luce's objectives were clear enough. He believed in figures of destiny—politicians, entrepreneurs, spiritual leaders—and put them on the covers of his magazines and sought their company."

as well as:

"He liked the intellectual excitement of dissenters on his staff, but what they reported seldom got into his magazines. "

Sound familiar?

The Luce article and the goals of the Project for a New American Century (note the title similarities) are, not coincidentally, identical. This is, in effect, a call for world domination by any means necessary to any purpose desired, and its architects are currently the people who posess the political power to make it happen.

"This is our due," someone once said. They meant much, much more than anyone sane ever thought they did.

[Ufomammut]

126. Thanks for posting the info

Instead of chastising those of us unfamiliar with its origins. Hasn't there always been these type of behind the scenes plots, "Illuminati," Bildergerg, etc? There's so much out there ...it tends to drive most people away when the real crux of our dilemma is simply convincing people that they're being lied to.

[file83]

79. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[Lochloosa]

62. The Carter Doctrine was about OUTSIDE forces trying to take

over the gulf region. Not the invasion of sovereign governments. That is the PNAC's Doctrine.

From Carter's state of the union.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

So, according to this Doctrine we should be fighting ourselves.


And don't make a statement and not expect someone to disagree and write back some horseshit.

[Triana]

64. Exactly - what Lochloosa said

there are worlds of difference between the two and they cannot and should not even be compared.

[Ufomammut]

65. Do explain how my statement was "horseshit"

[Lochloosa]

72. follow the lines. My comment was directed at MrPrax not you.

[MrPrax]

66. No...

The Doctrine was struck because of the Iranian Revolution...that's the outside force...non-American!!

Good grief...

[Lochloosa]

74. Nope. It was struck because of the invasion of Afghanistan by

the Soviet Union. Carter was not going to invade Iran because of the hostages. But he did warn the SU not to think we were distracted by
the hostages. That was what the Carter Doctrine was about. Warning the SU not to advance any further into the region.

Again, from Carters state of the union.

We continue to pursue these specific goals: first, to protect the present and long-range interests of the United States; secondly, to preserve the lives of the American hostages and to secure, as quickly as possible, their safe release, if possible, to avoid bloodshed which might further endanger the lives of our fellow citizens; to enlist the help of other nations in condemning this act of violence, which is shocking and violates the moral and the legal standards of a civilized world; and also to convince and to persuade the Iranian leaders that the real danger to their nation lies in the north, in the Soviet Union and from the Soviet troops now in Afghanistan, and that the unwarranted Iranian quarrel with the United States hampers their response to this far greater danger to them.

But now we face a broader and more fundamental challenge in this region because of the recent military action of the Soviet Union.


http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml

Here is the link. Maybe you should read it sometime.

[MrPrax]

87. I just read it...

Your post:

first, to protect the present and long-range interests of the United States?????

What didn't I read that YOU READ?????

It's about oil, it's always been about oil--R U seriously thinking that the fulcrum of US interests is NOT control of OIL?

The Carter Doctrine was in asmuch response to the so-called 70s oil crisis than anything else...

It's much simplier going for the oil thing, than...what?...converting people to 'democracy', eliminating 'evil', getting rid of 'terrorists'...

The whole point of the PNAC to begin with is OIL...that's the motivation, the rest is just 'spin' in the hopes that it might strike the American popular imagniation and translate into a political mandate for 'whoever' promotes it.

You don't honestly believe that the US is attacking Iran because of...? nukes, do you?

[Lochloosa]

88. I never stated that it was not about the oil.

Our involvement in the Middle East has always been about oil. But the Carter Doctrine was not about Iran. It was about the Soviet Union. The PNAC follows the Soviet Unions doctrine closer that the CD. It was about invading countries in order to control the oil. And that is what the PNAC is all about. The MONEY.

Below is the PNAC's Statement of Principles and it is all about control.



June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

[MrPrax]

118. How can we read the same

thing and come to a different point of view...

OK...some group of RePukes wrote something called 'PNAC'...

Here are the four points you posted:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

How precisely are these points even at odds with even Kerry's last campaign platform--how is it you see this as some 'conspiracy' or some 'extremist' plan? How do you see this as not fully articulated official US policy for the last 50 years.

Here's a deeply sinister agenda:

In an address also known as the Four Freedoms speech, Roosevelt enumerated four points as fundamental freedoms humans "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:

1. Freedom of speech and expression
2. Freedom of every person to worship God in his own way!!!!
3. Freedom from want - individual!!! economic security
4. Freedom from fear - world disarmament to the point that wars of aggression are impossible.

But he was talking about Nazis and Commies, right?

Americans love this stuff...

Do you think that all those signers would have a problem with say, the Johnson Doctrine:

"The Johnson Doctrine, enunciated by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson after the United States' intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1965, declared that domestic revolution in the Western Hemisphere would no longer be a local matter when "the object is the establishment of a Communist dictatorship".

Hell back in the 60s they had right wing think tanks as well who had 'wet dreams' about the projection of US power in the world.

Getting back to Iran: If you recall, Brzezinski told Carter to invade Iran to protect the Shah...was Ziggy in on the PNAC?

Empires don't really need 'white papers' to go and bomb the shit out of a country you know...

[happydreams]

81. You don't even know what "outside force" means.

Soviet Union, China, Cameroon are outside forces. Iran was inside force. You know why? Because Iran is in the Persian Gulf region. See how simple it is.

Next question: which of the above three outside nations are the least likely to invade the region?

[WinkyDink]

131. What "outside force" besides us might you think this refers to?

Iran and Iraq happen to be there, as in, not outside.

[AndyTiedye]

140. The Only Significant Outside Force in the Middle East is the U.S. Army

Which has been running rampant in Iraq, and engaging in activites that certainly
are an assault on the vital interests of the United States.

According to the Carter Doctrine, the Army should remove itself from the Middle East,
though it should not be necessary for it to use military force on itself.

[katty]

83. yes, they have-and they don't have much time left to execute

their big attack plans.

[stickdog]

123. Don't forget Saudi Arabia & Egypt -- the "prize"! (nt)

[Canuckistanian]

130. Iraq planned before 9/11?

And they STILL fucked it up? Well, then, we know how Iran is going to turn out.

[LynnTheDem]

4. "under long-standing principles of self-defense" NAME ONE, bush.

Name ONE "long-standing principle" that allows for preventive war.

NAME ONE.

I'll name the Nuremberg Tribunal; preventive war = "the supreme crime".

So PEARL HARBOR was right & just "under long-standing principles of self-defense"?


george W. bush; stupidest sickest MFer on the planet.

[Clark2008]

41. Actually, the people who believe what Bush is saying are

even more stupid than he is.

[neoblues]

6. They are relatively insane...

granted, but no need to overreact until things are more emminent. Note that I said 'overreact', not react. We need to make ourselves heard as early as possible by as much of the public as possible that we don't want to see our "leaders" get us entangled in yet another war well before the existence of yet a new round of WMDs (in the form of future nuclear weapons in I-RAN). One would think they'd realize we're stretched to the point of febrility as is and can't manage another conflict... and the public needs to realize that the only way we could do so would involve a draft... (a draft potentially caused by the daft).

[debbierlus]

8. I just don't know what will stop them

Our mass protests and logical arguments and facts (which ALL turned out to be 100% correct) on Iraq had no effect.

The dems have not demonstrated any resolve to stop this - in fact - I don't think I have heard a major statement against pre-emptive action in Iran from any dem.

I will protest and fight despite feeling it will do little good. Because that is all we can do. Keep fighting.

[neoblues]

106. We were ineffective... still...

some things have changed. Shrub is in the high 60's in terms of disapproval rating; he's in trouble with his own party; more and more people are waking up to the fact of his criminal incompetence, inability to make rational decisions and even to the fact he lies every time he speaks. Dems haven't yet demonstrated the will to stop him; but thus far, all he's done is bluster. He's floating the notion, attempting to create an image of IRAN that they're an imminent threat and bolster his own support--but he's not really succeeding and we've all already heard the "intelligence" that IRAN will need several to many more years to actually develop any nuclear weapons--so it really will be an uphill battle for him to try to drag us all into another 'war'. There's nothing to stop him from actually bombing IRAN--though without some solid intelligence, that would be a counter-productive failure; which--even if IRAN did "declare war" on us for such--wouldn't actually constitute a "war". Why? IRAN is helpless other than it's ability to assist terrorists (which isn't really insignificant, but a war it does not make). Yes, it would be another bonus gift to the terrorist factions out there, but little more than another brick in the cathedral of stupidity shrub has already built. Therefore, all I'm saying, is that it's just a little early to panic--we haven't even tried to stop him (and he's not massing troops for an invasion)(also, what troops?--we have none to spare).

So, we should all remain calm, gather our strength and do what we can to further remind the country how this catastrophe in chief misled us. There are yet millions of people who don't even know what a Downing Street Memo is (and probably figure it has something to do with British Minister's using their government credit cards to pay for partaking of the brothels on Downing Street). Constant pressure on the issue of misleading us to war; and given his weak numbers and lack of "political capital" (along with simple logistical problems like not having enough soldiers) and we're probably quite capable of preventing the repeat of anything half a stupid as invading IRAQ. As you say, protest and fight and continue to tell everyone you can of shrub's malfeasance and proclivity to lie... especially about his lies designed to take us to war. Once bitten, twice shy...

[harpo]

109. call congress and say NO to war in Iran...we can stop them

if we get to work

[Bridget Burke]

11. They are as crazy as rats on acid.

Going into Iraq was idiocy of the first order. Why should we expect any better from them.

[neoblues]

90. Not much reason to expect better...

indeed, the only thing I can think of--since they absolutely refuse to learn from their mistakes--since they never make any mistakes--is that they simply lack sufficient resources at this point to crush IRAN underfoot the way they would under other circumstances. Though, granted, even that might not dissuade fools with mad illusions of omnipotency.

[annabanana]

29. in the landslide, the pebbles thought it was about time

to speak up...

[neoblues]

89. Ouch. But eerily accurate analogy... nt.

[mtnsnake]

7. Wouldn't it be better to try & figure out our differences instead

of attacking, killing, getting killed, and pissing off more of the world at us....if that's even possible?

All Bush wants is a fight, but as long as he can watch it safely from 6000 miles away, the fucking coward.

[cosmik debris]

9. We in Texas have known for a while

That W believes that he has a role to play in Armageddon. What you see as WWIII, he sees as the beginning of the Rapture. Bush is the Christian equivalent of an Islamic suicide bomber. He may not get virgins, but the asshole honestly believes that God will thank him for this.

[debbierlus]

13. He should be on a locked ward

The lunatics do indeed have the keys to the asylum.

The man is a danger to the entire world.

[4 t 4]

14. OMG?

Here we go again by the way we are already fighting with Syria on the border with unarmed drones just ask Scott Ridder?

[Dr. Jones]

19. I'm not sure that he does.

I'm not sure he really cares - I think he was just USING the name of Christ to draw in and solidify his cultlike Christian freeper base.

I suspect he's just a power-hungry, greedy megalomaniac who revels in the idea that he MIGHT BE the Antichrist!

[newspeak]

37. so, does he believe he is the ANTI-CHRIST

this is man created, not God created--I hope he and his ilk don't think that they are going to be raptured. They are by far the LEAST Christ like. And, how about those burning human effigy to the owl god of care parties down at Bohemian Grove? Is that Christian? Nah, I'm thinking he thinks he's the servant of the anti-christ. Then there's Moon who thinks he's the new Messiah, cause you know Jesus didn't get it right. What a bunch of Moonie loonies with money and clout---if there are any aliens out there--can you beam me up Scotty because the loonies are in charge of the asylum.

[WiseButAngrySara]

76. I really wish that DUers would stop spreading the lie/myth that B* is, in

ANY REMOTE way, "religious"! He is not and has never been. It is a political ruse, implanted and nurtured by evil Rove, who has mastered Machiavelli...who realized that a leader's most important quality to possess is the appearance of religion; that this remains true for the masses today, should be obvious. An evil man is not religious, in the true sense of the word. B* is evil. I rest my case.

[WinkyDink]

132. Totally agree 100%. Bush's "religion" is that of Mammon.

[WiseButAngrySara]

133. Thank you WinkyDink! n/t

[newspeak]

151. yeah, well I know that and you know that

but he uses his fundie base and he appoints them, also.

[katty]

85. right, I heard this fr a friend who lived in TX for yrs, at first I didn't

believe it, it is so outrageous-this pansyass twit trying to play god-but, my friend what correct on this assertion.

[Lars39]

10. WW IV

PNACers consider the Cold War WW III.

[cali]

12. No they're not.

They don't have the mojo to go to war with Iran. There are consequenses to having started that cluster fuck known as Iraq. buscho is close to impotent when it comes to Iran. Yes, they're going to bluster about it, but they won't send troops in and they won't bomb Iran.

[bluedog]

15. No.I don't think they will..this is a scare tactic out of the WH

to try and swing bushs support base back up........all smoke and mirrors.....

[annabanana]

30. uh yeah... that's what people said about Iraq too..

"Oh, he won't really invade, We'll just give him permission so THEY think he'll invade and give us what we want"

That is EXACTLY what he did in Iraq...EXACTLY.

[magellan]

16. I'm feel like i'm going to start screaming and not stop

I can't believe this is happening again. I can't believe we're going to murder and maim god knows how many more innocent civilians and US troops for another pre-emptive war that has no basis in reality except oil and $$$. How ignorant or complicit are those in Congress? Why aren't they saying "This has already been done to Iraq; it was wrong then and it's wrong now...NO MORE!!"

[harpo]

95. well pick up the phone first and call your congressman, then scream at

them ;)

[shenmue]

17. Oh @%#$

I'm going to get more tables, so I can hide under a different one each day of the week.

:scared:

:cry:

[harpo]

98. yeah...that's right, OH @%#$, call congress and tell them NO!

[MadHound]

18. Talking with a Guard buddy of mine,

Went into Iraq for the initial invasion and occupation, came home a year and a half ago, but now is scheduled to go back this June. He is convinced, due to various exercises, rumors, supply orders and other matters that he and his unit will be spearheading the thrust into Iran. He is very, very scared of this impeding matter, and is really torn about what to do.

I tend to agree with him. These neo con PNACers have been chomping at the bit to get into Iran for over eight years, and now that they have their chance and a flimsy excuse, they're hell bent to go. Sadly, the blowback from such an invasion is going to be huge. We're going to be fucking with China's main oil source, and when one fucks with China they tend to come down on you with both feet. All China would have to do to stop us in our tracks is to sell off their dollar supply, and we would all be screwed.

[debbierlus]

22. I think they are going to go in and bomb Iran

The main argument against going into Iran is that it is not a good choice from a logical, military, national security, and cost stand point.

It just isn't rational or realistic.

In other words, it would be incredibly stupid, costly, and dangerous.

But, Bush & Co. do not operate within the confines of logic and reality.

These people are insane. They will do it. I have no doubt.

From my observation of the Bush regime, they always choose the worst possible course of action. The avenue that all logical and learned men run from...

I hope against hope against hope that I am dead wrong. But, I would bet a significant amount of money that I am not.

[MadHound]

26. Oh, it would be grossly insane and stupid to go into Iran

But hey, this is Bushco here, and thus we're going to be going. I agree, it is going to be mainly an air campaign at first, but that air campaign will blow up a huge insurgency, both in Iraq and Iran, and thus we'll have to put boot on the ground in Iran in an attempt to quell it. Either that or a nuke, and I wouldn't put that past Bushco either.

And my bet is that once we're well involved in Iran, and past the '06 elections, there will be a huge push to restart the draft in this country.

[harpo]

92. and....

call congress and say NO!

[TNOE]

68. My feeling now in this hopeless situation is

the military just needs to say "fuck it" - we're not doing it - so do what you got to do. Lay down their weapons & refuse to go. That is going to be their only hope of staying alive and saving the world. Seriously.

[harpo]

99. they won't...citizens have to take action and engage congress

[yurbud]

96. given the polls of military, this could be White Palace moment, like

after the hard-liner coup in Russia. When people took to the streets to protest, the hard-liners called on troops to put them down, and they refused.

And that was the end of communism.

This will be the end of these guys, and if they try to fake a terrorist attack to sell it, it will just underline the need to remove them.

[MisterP]

137. let's hope it's like '91 as opposed to '93

[KansDem]

21. What ever happened to diplomacy?

I grew up during the Cold War. We knew there was a nuclear threat from the USSR, but it seemed that diplomacy kept it at bay. Now, however with BushCo, there is no diplomacy; just threats and a "hit them first" mentality.

[noonwitch]

23. Something's got to be done about Iran, but I don't trust Bush

The administration has so screwed up in Iraq, a war they didn't have to fight, that I tremble to think how badly they will screw up a far more serious situation that does call for some serious international action.

If they can't get the rest of the world to back them in dealing with Iran, then it's not going to go well anyways.

[debbierlus]

25. Remember, Iran is TEN years away from a nuclear weapon

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html

So, that does give us some time and options to utilize international diplomacy.

No one advocates ignoring any possible security threat. But, Bush is rip roaring to go in and start his rapture.

[bikebloke]

27. Yes men

The cabal is propped by sycophantic advisors pouring honey flavoured fantasies in their ears. Sure, they're winning in Iraq. Sure, they'll win Iran. Everything's just grand. Level heads have been run out. And as long as the junta is raking in our money hand over fist, why should they care. And if somehow they are chased out of office, I bet they've already picked up villas near Michael Jackson in Dubai.

I believe Iran will be their Stalingrad. The rest of us had better bone up on agricultural knowledge. It maybe the only way to survive in the newest Third World country.

[mzmolly]

28. EVERYONE here knew what the PNAC agenda was.

I hope everyone here who is concerned about this voted for John Kerry?

ABB and proud.

[democrank]

31. An attack on Iran

is Bush`s Get-Out-Of-The-Low-Poll-Numbers-Free card.

[lonestarnot]

32. bushitler's meniacal shit is going to get us all killed!

[NVMojo]

34. ...how can I get a visa to New Zealand?

or is death the only way out of this nightmare?

[harpo]

103. call your congressman and tell them why you want a visa to there

maybe it will help, maybe not...but they don't know if you don't tell them

[Hubert Flottz]

35. Adolf Junior is at it again!

You can't appease a dictator, the world should know that by now!

[DanCa]

36. Why oh why didn't more people vote for Senator Kerry?

Damn it all to hell anyway. I mean if the chimp shoots himself in the head with a gun do you blame the chimp or the person who gave the chimp the gun? Part of me feels like America is getting for what it deserved by putting the chimp back into the whitewash house.

[savemefromdumbya]

39. the machines would have eaten any extra Kerry votes anyhow

[Winter101]

134. What do you think..

What do you think John Kerry would have done after 9/11?

There's a park in the town where I live and in that park is a monument. It's the fire fighters monument, dedicated to all the fire fighters that die in the line of duty. It's black marble and it has their names and where they died and the date.

On one side there's several columns of names all with "name" - NY - 9/11/2001
So many names it just shocks when you see it.

I don't know anyone that can keep from crying when ever they see that. All those brave men sacrificed themselves trying to save others on that day.

President Bush immediately attacked Afghanistan; that was his solution.

What would John Kerry have done? Anyone care to speculate? :)

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

138. What does Iraq, Iran & 9/11 have to do with each other?

Also, what does what Kerry would have done after 9/11 have to do with anything?

BTW I'm sure he would have invaded Afghanistan too. If you were here you would know that DU supported the invasion of Afghanistan. You know, the country that harbored Bin Laden. You do remember him, don't you?

[Laurab]

141. You mean, after finishing "My Pet Goat"?

Oh wait, that wasn't him.

The other poster is correct, 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq or Iran and most people ARE aware of that, including John Kerry, but I would speculate that he would NOT have invaded Iraq, as they were no threat to us, and that he would use diplomacy with Iran (something John Kerry is capable of). I would also speculate that he probably WOULD have done something in Afghanistan, and probably would not have made a mess of it.

Most of all, I would speculate that he would have done everything in his power to investigate 9/11, rather than impede every effort to investigate it as this administration has done.

Monuments like those you wrote of are heartbreaking. Imagine how many more there are going to be now, from the illegal, unnecessary war with Iraq. All the brave men who were sacrficed by this pResident for....um......well, I'm not quite sure. There's so much more I can speculate on, but really, it breaks my heart to think of what could have been, so I won't.

[Marie26]

148. he would've attacked Afganistan, & left Iraq

alone, like any sane person. And this is because - Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11!

[savemefromdumbya]

38. Congress won't allow it - saw off the Executive branch now

:nuke:

[debbierlus]

40. Just like they wouldn't allow:

Torture

Illegal Spying

2 Stolen Presidential Elections

Bush has the power of 'Commander in Chief'.

Didn't you hear?

[savemefromdumbya]

44. then it is time to saw

[donkeyotay]

47. Not only is Congress MIA, but it should be obvious to us by now that

this administration has no interest in the welfare of the American people. They are working for the corporate new world order, not us. Therefore, it is wrong to look at invading Iran as unthinkable because it would be bad for us. Personally, I think they want to get as much mileage out of us - both as cannon fodder and financially - as they can before our third world status settles in.

[Beelzebud]

42. God? These maniacs in power should be all the proof you need

that there is no god...

[Winter101]

84. What if we don't?

I like to think of all sides...

I just don't think we can go through another war...

What do think will happen if someone doesn't confront Iran?

Doesn't have to be us but someone in the world. But what will Iran do with the nuclear weapons they are building if someone doesn't stop them?

They have threatened to wipe Israel off the map... surely no one believes they would actually use those bombs do they?

[WiseButAngrySara]

86. Oh, but it can work the opposite way...Humans have so F...ed up the

world with their evil, that God (heaven, nirvana, Absolute Good, etc.) must exist. Beauty is not meaningless, and does exist. So does truth. Humans screw up the universe.

[hunter]

43. If Iraq hasn't proved we are not a superpower, Iran will.

The grim reaper of nations knocked on our door, and the Bush Administration let him in.

[Beelzebud]

45. In about 10 years China is going to make that painfully obvious...

Unfortunately for us... Our C.E.O. government is more concerned with profits, than our well-being.

[file83]

78. Look at how China's military is setting up a "ring" around our country

right under the American Public's noses, and our government isn't doing a damned thing about it.

"Chinese Military trains west" (Washington Times)

Chinese economic activities are increasing in Canada, the Pentagon official said, noting that the activities in the hemisphere are part of a "counter-encirclement" strategy by Beijing, aimed at neutralizing what China views as a U.S. policy of building up bases and alliances in nations around China.

Two key phrases here:

1) "economic activities" meaning the money they make from training and selling arms to these countries (read the entire article to learn about that)
2) "neutralizing" meaning reducing the USA's strategic advantage and positioning China as a THE global superpower.

[katty]

121. yes, china no longer 'sleeping giant'-more restless dragon

[harpo]

122. China has a Billion more people that us

[Minnesota Libra]

46. Isn't permanent war the whole idea and the 2nd coming of.......

....Christ for the neocons??

edited for clarity

[debbierlus]

116. Yes. It is just so hard to believe.

It is SO bizarre.

Sheer lunacy!

[no_hypocrisy]

48. How can this prospect be "frustrated"? Who really can stop * or even tell

him not to bomb Iran? It really comes down to Cheney and/or Rumsfeld. Maybe Condi, but I honestly don't think she carries the clout we've imagined her to have concerning *.

[harpo]

101. the people tell congress, congress tells the president

that's how it works...but congress has to HEAR you.

[DanCa]

49. Hmm I bet the freepers will start enlisting in droves.

:sarcasm:

[Neil Lisst]

52. it's good to know some things never change, isn't it?!

If World War broke out tomorrow, the number of Freepers who enlist would not increase. They're good at talking about fighting.

[DanCa]

55. The new three constants of the universe

Death, Taxes, and Freeper Cowardice...hmm maybe that's why they choose the chimp as their leader. :D

[liveoaktx]

50. CALL CONGRESS NOW and TELL THEM BUSH MUST GET

explicit authorization to strike other countries. Every one of them needs to go on record with whether they are wimps

[shadowknows69]

60. They've probably all been promised

Their own luxury bunker. The powerful take care of no one but each other.

[harpo]

100. call anyway

[progressoid]

51. We gotta hold them off until the 06 election

[debbierlus]

54. I just hope that the numbers are so overwhelming in 06

That they won't be able to cheat.

But, I am sure they will try.

[harpo]

93. don't wait for 06, call congress NOW....election time will be too late

[debbierlus]

115. I will call Harry Reid

And, Senator Kerry. Kennedy won't be for this - Kerry probably won't either but he fcked up with Iraq.

[havocmom]

67. Sorry, the Iranian Oil Brouse opens, what, next Monday?

And based on the Euro instead of the dollar. THAT is the real threat. The junta's pals are about to lose a lot of value on their ill gotten currancy.

[harpo]

111. exactly

[katinmn]

56. The rest of the world needs to apply pressure to stop Bush

Other governments must refuse to negotiate with Bush and his representatives. They must boycott US corporations.

* 60-70% Americans oppose Bush's destruction of Iraq.
* 70% of U.S. soldiers IN Iraq want us to leave.
* Our elected officials have abrogated their responsibility to provide oversight and to represent their constituents' interests and wishes.

What we have is a dictatorship. Unless we all take up arms (not likely) we are at the mercy of other countries to stop him.

[harpo]

97. no...AMERICANS need to apply pressure to stop bush

if the rest of the world applies pressure, we may not like that very much...especially since China has a Billion more people than us.

[katinmn]

108. PSSST. Our leaders are ignoring us.

[harpo]

110. them SPEAK UP so they can hear you

[katinmn]

113. That's what I do all day and encourage others to do as well. :-)

I also work on issues (anti-war, election reform, privacy) and political campaigns. I can't do any more except perhaps start breaking things.

[harpo]

114. Right on...now that's what I'm talkin about

people acting instead of talking

[MiniMe]

59. The dems need to introduce a bill or something that says

The Pres does NOT have the authority to go into Iran. *sigh* I know, wishful thinking, but it might actually have some repuke support, there are still a few reasonable ones left.

[Greeby]

119. Get on the horn to Kucinich, he'd do it

http://www.kucinich.us/floor_speeches/intl_condemn_iran16feb.php <---- his opposition to a resokution condemning Iran

[harpo]

120. Kucinich rules...I heard him speak at the state convention in 04 in Texas

[happydreams]

75. Deindustrialize upstart nations. The US doesn't have the troops

to invade Iran, or even successfully invade Iraq, but they can sure as hell bomb the shit out of the counry as they can Venezuela and deindustrialize them.

[harpo]

94. they will move them from Iraq into Iran

[katinmn]

112. 700 Army and 4000 National Guard are on their way to Iraq right now

[happydreams]

152. I don't get it. How can they do that if Iraq is not secure?

:shrug:

[Nutmegger]

77. OMG - What can we do?

We're powerless against the thugs at Bush Inc.

:scared:

[harpo]

91. Get on the phone and tell congress NO!!!!

[Ksec]

80. this is what happens when your military industrial complex runs government

This has to stop. The money the war profiteers makes is why we have this. We need to cut the money to defense. Its obscene that we pay so much into our military budget and thats why its been corrupted.

[Initech]

102. Great, here comes World War III!

:nuke:

[genieroze]

104. Holy Christ on a cracker.

[stevietheman]

105. If a war against Iran appears imminent, it will be time to go...

"revolutionary" on our politicians' asses.

Ring their phones off the hook with very stern warnings about the criminal Bush regime and that the people are ready to rise up if the politicians don't stand up. Fax them and postcard them and mail letters to them until they can't handle it. Write articles outright blasting the Bush Regime and taking the side of Iran, as we must take the side of the victim here, even if we don't like internal Iranian politics.

I'm ready to go "revolutionary" on these Nazis if they take one step too far.

[eomer]

117. What are you talking about? You need reprogramming because...

[Jamison]

124. Well the US will be the Axis powers in WW3.

I think the world will turn against Bush if he invades Iran and China & Russia will be the world's saviors this time around.

[Rex]

128. "This job would be so much easier if this were a dictatorship,"

George W Bush

Something everyone should read.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/12/12_easier.html

This was written on Dec. 12 2001 by one of our fellow DUrs. Words so true it hurts.

[LittleClarkie]

135. If they do, I predict his approval numbers will reach Peter Puma range

ie, "Oh, two or three"

[Rocknrule]

136. I am convinced that this man has a hard on for war

and wants to invade every nation in the world, one by one, in the name of 9/11 and fighting terra

[harpo]

139. ya think?

[Imagevision]

144. Still Russia & China are against Bush bombing Iran but they were against

bombing/invading Iraq also. Maybe Bush wiill just bomb the entire middle east? Do Saudi Arabia already and just take the oil why Fu*k around?

[Mr_Spock]

145. Duh - Richard Clark said it was decided in Jan 2005

It's already been decided.

[Marie26]

147. Where did he say that? nt

[Mr_Spock]

150. I'm sorry, it was Seymour Hersh & Scott Ritter - see article within...

http://www.energybulletin.net/4634.html

Onward to Iran
by Richard Heinberg

MuseLetter 155 (March 2005)

...

"In an article in The New Yorker dated January 17 2005 veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported that US commando teams have been operating in Iran for months, carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical, and missile sites in preparation for possible air strikes. Hersh also says that the administration's aims could include not just the thwarting of Iran's nuclear ambitions, but regime change as well.

Citing a former high-level intelligence official, Hersh claims that secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election "and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message":-
"This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone", the former high-level intelligence official told me. "Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah - we've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism."
While Administration officials dispute Hersh's allegations, other reporters and news agencies are publishing corroborating information. An Al Jazeera article published February 6, titled "US-Israel plan to strike Iran's nuclear sites finalized", claimed that:-
Experts from the US Defense Department, the Pentagon and Israel have put final touches to a plan to launch a military strike targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, experts at the European Commission based in Brussels, revealed on Sunday. The experts added that the implementation of this plan rested on a number of factors including the US continuous efforts to hamper the EU-Iranian negotiations to persuade Iran to suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment, with the aim of justifying a military strike against the Islamic republic if it refused to bow to US pressures. Yesterday, American news sources reported that US senators have set up a review panel of the CIA's intelligence on Iran in order to try and avoid the pitfalls that marked the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq."

...

"Meanwhile rumors mount. On February 18, Scott Ritter, a former US Marine and UN weapons inspector in Iraq, in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater in Washington State, claimed on the basis of inside information that George W Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005.

While European diplomatic efforts seek to head off a military confrontation, "In private", as Guy Dinsmore notes in a Financial Times article of February 14 ("Would Condi and Dubbya really Start Another War?"), "European officials say the best they can do is to buy time, perhaps to the end of the year"."

-snip-



In my opinion, the EU & Russia has bought some "time" through negotiations with Tehran - but it is apparent to anyone who is paying attention that the plan is predetermined - it's just a matter of when. It will likely be timed to have maximum impact on elections. The Republicans need a rallying issue to attempt a recovery from the current funk they are in. Mark my words...

[LeaveIraqNow]

153. I feel a draft coming on.