read this, and tell me it doesn't make a chill run through your bones. these guys are just crazy.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

I agree, those Iranians are definitely off theri rockers but what took you so long to understand that?

Since the Army's preoccupied in Iraq we'll just "Air Force" Iran and those hedonistic mtv watching hijab shedding young people finish off them mullahs!!!

Like I said to gregario over in Bush said to be considering using Nukes, who really didn't think this was part of the plan since about 2002? It's way to early to know how long it will take the USA to recover from the "Bush Years". The man still has 44 more months to destroy entire planet. All this time everyone has been thinking he's saying "the war on terror" because of his speech impediment when he's actually saying "the war on terra".

No worries dude, it all about planning and execution

I agree, those Iranians are definitely off theri rockers but what took you so long to understand that?

A better question is: Why has it taken our administration so long to figure it out? Three years ago, Iran had a very thinly disguised WMD program that even a school bus driver from Missouri knew about. So who gets the bus ticket? The kid across the aisle. That definitely wouldn't work on my school bus and I doubt it will work in the Middle East either.

A better question is: Why has it taken our administration so long to figure it out? Three years ago, Iran had a very thinly disguised WMD program that even a school bus driver from Missouri knew about. So who gets the bus ticket? The kid across the aisle. That definitely wouldn't work on my school bus and I doubt it will work in the Middle East either.

Yeah, but Iraq's WMD program was MUCH further along. So much further, in fact, they developed the ability to cloak them like Klingon birds of prey.

What makes you think the administration failed to see anything? Where would we have staged an invasion of Iran? Where will we stage it now, should it be necessary?

What makes you think the administration failed to see anything? Where would we have staged an invasion of Iran? Where will we stage it now, should it be necessary?

Since you ask, Snake, I don't believe that the administration failed to see anything.

I think that we invaded Iraq because the French had the oil field servicing contracts and Halliburton wanted them. We didn't invade Iran because Halliburton already had business dealings there. That's what I truly think and that's why I hate those guys so much!

If that's what you truely think, that's what you think. I believe you are wrong, but then, that's just me, I was wrong once too, I think. :)

From the article:

“There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

Is Bush f-in' nuts?

Has it occured to the Bush Admin to make friends with the Iranians instead of nuking them? Nuking Iran might be the issue that puts Bush on trial for war crimes at the Hague.

Not to worry, we have to lose before he can be tried as a criminal. It'll be ok.

Not to worry, we have to lose before he can be tried as a criminal. It'll be ok.
Can I come and shack up with you in your bomb shelter?;)

You DO have extra radiation glasses right? :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

Or else we're all gonna wind up like this. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

It's BYOB, don't forget, BYOB..

One of 'The experts' on Iranian Nuke development was none other than Valerie Plame.
Her storefront montored such developments, especially in Iran.
So if W 'knew about it' he didn't care enough to not scuttle his best intelfor political purposes.

Heckuva Job.

wow and Iran wouldn't be an issue now (like it is) had we not invaded Iraq.We'd have more $, more international support, an actual moral leg to stand on,and a less taxed military to excercise detente.


loser!

If that's what you truely think, that's what you think. I believe you are wrong, but then, that's just me, I was wrong once too, I think. :)

The US invasion of Iraq had a primary economic component. The Middle East controls the lion's share of crude petrolium. Instability there is not good for business. Growing anti-American sentiment in the region is bad for business. What would be good for business is a stable, pro-US democratic government in Iraq.

You can spout off lots of reasons not related to the economic imperative of readilly available crude but I can shoot them down in a heartbeat using the examples of other nations that the US has not felt so benevolent toward. Number one on the list is N. Korea.

I would never argue that oil is not the primary force that drives US policy in this region, it drives every outside governments policy that is there. The invasion of Iraq was not primarily due to an imminant threat to that oil supply though, it was unfinished business in a new stage or our involvment. Terrorism made it imperitive that we act. In the past, we have had problems in that region and there was no standing army on location and no place in which to build one up. That has been part of what limited American response for the last 50 years. Can you not recall how difficult it was to stage for Gulf War 1 and the problems we had with the desired Northern fromt operation in the last invasion? I have always felt that the Iraqi invasion was two fold, it elimintated any chance of Saddam using our distraction to pull some crap and it gave us a foothold, a place to stage should further actions be necessary. That is why the Murtha "over the horizon" plan was such BS. It put us back to square one with no way to project power.

It put us back to square one with no way to project power.

I think that your view of the solution has a couple contradictory goals. First some assumptions:

* A "free" Iraq is benefit to the region. By this I mean at least marginally democratic.
* A pro-US Iraqi government is a benfit to the US.
* Iraq should be a a springboard from the projection of US power in the region.

First, if Iraq were truely free, then it can't legitimately be pro-US in the manner that many proponets of the war would like. It can be friendly and cooperative with the US, sure. But if it is perceived as a puppet (just perceived) then it loses credibility from within and gets the boot via free elections of violence if the elections are percieved as being rigged.

Second, if a "free" Iraq is perceived as being a puppet of the US by other countries in the region, then other ME people who desire self determination sure won't come looking to the US for help.

Third, if the US uses Iraq a glorified military base to project military force within the region, any resident of the region will feel resentment toward the US. They will see their leaders bending to the US and that is going to be counter productive in the long term.

Which leads us to the logical conclusion. The US will have to control Iraq militarily. This is going to take lots more troops and a long term commitment of occupation. Perhaps through settlement, we can turn it into a truely western nation, a la Isreal.