Ok, Get your Pre-war Position on Record Now !!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

Poll question: Ok, Get your Pre-war Position on Record Now !!

The writing is on the wall, we are going to do something in Iran. Record your pre-war position so it is on record for future reference !

[Lerkfish]

1. I've predicted for months now preemptive nuclear attack

and some bozo wanted me to bet him 500 bucks.

I told him its not a bet I'd want to win. Wonder if he'll say anything about it this time next month\

on edit: to clarify, I DO NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN!!!! I just see it happening and feel powerless to stop it.
Its one of my personal nightmares. Torturing detainees is the other.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

3. That's what YOU want? or what you think will happen? I guess

the latter. Scary shit, indeed. Hiroshima revisited.

[Lerkfish]

10. wtf? you think I WANT that? I'm a pacifist, hate all wars.

I'm just reading the very obvious tea leaves.
I was not the one who wanted to bet. I told the other person this was too serious to cheapen with a bet.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

9. It's our least expensive option

[Tesha]

36. "Least expensive" in the short run? Or the long run? (NT)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

43. Oh, the short run for sure.

These guys don't THINK long term.

But the army is busy, so we'll nuke 'em. I honestly believe he would.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

14. just teasing you. If you re-read your title it sounds like you are for

the preemptive stikes.

[Lerkfish]

15. yeah, sorry for that! I re-edited the post to clarify. no way, no how do I

want this to happen.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. You know, Seymour Hearsh predicted the same thing - maybe 3

months ago. He said they were just debating on how to go about it. But it doesn't take a damn rocket scientist to see the crooks and liars are setting the stage.

[Lerkfish]

26. that's me: "not a damn rocket scientist". LOL

yet I see it coming, I feel it in my weary bones.

[yodermon]

17. Here's how it will go down

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8713

<snip>
In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran.

It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.

Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.

Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel’s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some "black ops" group will orchestrate the attack.

One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation.

Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn’t it?

Fantasy? Let’s hope so.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. Wow - that's an amazing post ! You know first of all, all the talk

lately about IEDs does seem staged or out of context. Hell, when did he ever worry about them before? And then someone said that he lied about them. He used some bogus statistic about how they are dismantling more of them now but he neglected to say that the total number has skyrocketed. So, something's rotten in Denmark.

I hope the hell your highlighted paragraph won't happen. We here would have no doubt he could pull it off, but what a truly sad, sad, horrible, state of affairs it would be if he did.

[mattclearing]

30. Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack?

That seems a bit much.

More likely we'll bomb the site of their nuclear facilities.

[InsultComicDog]

2. IF Iran is a serious threat to us

then we created that threat, since the tension between Iran and Iraq always helped keep both those nations in check.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. Good point. I heard someone say that it is absolutely ludicrous

to believe that they would ever, ever, ever, launch a nuclear attack on any neighbor unless they had a suicide wish for their entire county. US would wipe them off the face of the earth...

[bowens43]

13. For the same reason , they would never attack the US.

It's the fear mongers who have hijacked our government who want us to fear Iran. Iran is no more a threat then Iraq was or any nation is.

[liveoaktx]

4. Get your CONGRESSPERSON"S Position on record now !!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x674738

Do they agree that Bush can go invade any country any time he chooses without an explicit declaration of war? Do they agree with the Bush doctrine? Are they WIMPS? Especially our Democrats need to take a position.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. thanks. I hadn't read your post before. you are 100% right.

[Career Prole]

5. I voted "I don't know" but I sincerely hope that someday soon

we will have a government in place here in the U.S. which will make an honest assessment and report the results of same forthrightly and completely to the American people.
It's a big dream, I know... :eyes:

[bowens43]

7. Iran is a threat?

Only the unthinking could possibly believe that Iran , even with nukes, would be a threat to the United States.
Deterrence works. The threat of complete annihilation in retaliation is more then enough to prevent an attack.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. i agree 100%

[sheelz]

12. Who are the 2 that voted to bomb

Iran? They should get their ass back on this thread and defend their position.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

16. Trolls. here, we may need this...

[4 t 4]

19. There will always be

wars-do you think that's true? Why can't the human race evolve? I mean short of someone pointing a gun right at your head-I'm against the mere mention of war or ANY kind of violence. Why are humans in general not evolving?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. Yes, always war. There will always be two factions at odds but

the preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation by us to me should never be called a "war". It was totally elective and not an honest, albeit horrific, dispute between two countries. If that makes sense.

[sheelz]

29. Warmongers are inhuman and can't evolve

[Individualist]

18. My position is the same as it was pre-Iraq

They are NO threat to us. NO MORE SLAUGHTER!

[Squatch]

20. War with Iran would be utterly foolish at this point

[Warpy]

22. I believe the road to a moderated government is leaving them alone

because they were moving toward moderation until Stupid invaded Iraq and started making stupid "Axis of eeeeeeevul" speeches all over the place condemning Iran.

Now they've taken huge steps backwards toward religious conservatism and social control and it's all the fault of the present maladministration in the White House.

[Hubert Flottz]

23. America trusted Bush about Iraq's WMDs and it was all lies.

Who can believe him? Bush lies about EVERYTHING! Even the weather!

[KoKo]

25. Exactly...it's another Neo-Con Bolton SCREW UP! I'm shocked that

there were two votes for A and B and that some here don't realize that they cooked the intelligence on Iraq and they've cooked the books on everything...

[DrGonzoLives]

27. (E)

Is Iran a threat? They certainly aren't friendly. They have a PM and a ruling fundamentalist elite that believe Israel should be wiped from the Earth.

But...

We have absolutely no evidence this is anything more than sabre-rattling, similar to what Bush himself does over here.

[sheelz]

31. Option (E) is

part of the Repubs talking point. They claim we don't know so go bomb them. Don't fall for it!

[DrGonzoLives]

34. Uh....OK

I have yet to hear that argument from the Republicans. The argument is that we "know" they are developing nukes, because look at them kick out the inspectors and refuse to negotiate. It is "certain" that they are funding and training terrorists in Iraq, and so forth.

I have yet to hear a single Republican say "We don't know, so let's go bomb them." Not to mention that that is not even close to what I put in my post.

[sheelz]

37. David Kay and others said that at AIPAC rally.

Essentially, David Kay said we can't know. Then Bolton makes his speech. It's a mix of both messages.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

38. Do you think they will get the Fisher-Price camera out again to

take pictures of the "nuclear sites"?

[sheelz]

39. Yep and colorforms too!

[PATRICK]

32. Except for the oil

card which an attack would cause de facto to be a "threat" Iran poses no threat to anyone, including Israel. All the supposed threats regarding the ME(we barely enter into it except for the money) can only be solved by obliteration and conquest, neither of which can even be done. In frustration with this ultimate failure the common sense civilian peevishly wishes to nuke the whole area, oil or not.

At least that madness has the benefit of not being a lie. Total eradication as the Final Solution is the zero sum game of perceiving Iran as a threat, then taking violent useless action making things worse and creating in all likelihood whatever it is we think we fear.

Why the "threat" meme is an old stale lie. Because we already were forced into a test case(Iraq) and it is a total sham- except maybe they ARE a future threat now because of our invasion. Because we cannot possibly be threatened by them. Because their oil money and their tech threat will simply dry up with the last oil. Because the supposed threats from iran are OK when equally or worse nations are allowed nukes and called allies. Because those "friendly" nation can turn on a dime into an enemy too and within them still support active "threats" against us.

The threat in sum total is all a club membership perception, a brutal fraternity out for mischief, intriguing and fighting with its citizens as expendable chesspieces. The threat is in the members of the club and those who wield the power of violence- or else what "threat" are they talking about?

For all the very same reasons, America poses, de facto, the greatest "threat" of all to the world in any aspect you care to mention, protected only by its democratic institutions. And well, one could comment on the state of those and the future threat of even worse. The very word is a scam we are sucked into. The one most actively using and waving the greatest weaponry in their homeland is the US, us, we the superpower.

I suppose Haiti was a threat too. Every country with oil to grab and not enslaved by the club is a "threat" to those who want it all. In doing so with lies they will create real threats and ZERO security needlessly and with no care at all for America.

The threat is a total fraud. I know people will revrt to old policy thinking and Iran's religious extremism etc. That is only wiondow dressing for the reality of what is about to occur. That itself is swindled as well as exposed for the kinder more pragmatic fraud it always was anyway. Just because we are all suckers in good company with good reasons doesn't change the crime one jot.

[Virginia Dare]

33. If they are now indeed a true threat..

to the point that something must be done militarily--it's certainly because the Bush Administration has completely fucked everything up in that region.

[liveoaktx]

35. They aren't a threat- I have the video clips where Pace and Rumsfeld

contradict what Bush said about the IEDs and IRan.

[Virginia Dare]

44. You're probably right..

I've heard many experts say they are at least 10-20 years from a nuclear weapon. They should be far down on the list. It's all about the oil baby.

[ProfessorGAC]

40. Where's The Choice For. . .

. . ."i'm not scared so we shouldn't bomb them at all."?
The Professor

[sheelz]

41. In the End...

It really doesn't matter whether they are a threat or not. They want to do this! If one talking point is "we know they are a threat" and another comes along saying "we know we know" they will go for this bombing campaign regardless of any threat real or perceived. I think Israel is going to make the first move.

[Dob Bole]

42. OTHER

1) get weapons inspectors in
2) If Iranian govt is hostile or evasive, and has nuclear weapons, then:

3) encourage socialist revolution in Iran.
4) establish secular govt. with religious freedoms.
5) No U.S. troop involvement.

This is what should have been done in Iraq. But it's something that right-wingers won't do...create a govt where the people of the country own and share their own oil. And democratic socialism? Blech!