OT: BUSH is gonna NUKE IRAN !!

[supercow3]

Originally posted by Mistersuperfly Was the invasion of Iraq merely a way to give the US property next door to Iran if we need it?

Nope..i doubt it wasnt really for oil as well bnut more of milatray spending..we now that dick cheney has a share of haliburton...

[gil1]

Originally posted by Wilbo26 +1^3 I actually rooted for Bush in 2000 because I thought having one party in control would actually get some stuff done in this country. Boy was I wrong.

 

 

It's really great you guys have open minds.

 

It did get some stuff done in this country. But it was the wrong stuff.

 

Really, what was wrong with Clinton?

 

A booming economy, a surplus in the bank.

 

We threw that away because some people were mad that he got a blowjob? Because of the word "liberal"

 

We need to stop voting the same way we root for football teams.

 

I still say "Wes Clark/John McCain" ticket!

[gil1]

As Dick Chaney said:
"Iraq floats on a sea of oil."

[hempathy]

Using Iran as a base for a ground invasion of Iran is ludicrious.

Southern Iraq is Mainly Sh'ia. Iran is mainly Sh'ia. The US+UK have basically handed control of Iraq over to Sh'ia militias, who have invaded the police, the military and the political hierarchy. There is a de facto sharia law in place in much of Iraq, that is supported not only by the jihadists but by the Shia militias headed by religious leaders such as Al Sadr.

IF Iraq was used as a base of operations to invade Iran with the objective of destroying the nuclear infrastructure of Iran, (which is not possible even with nuclear bunker busters, therefore a ground assault would be needed) then it would be the last spark needed in order to destabalise the entire region. We wouldnt be worried so much about civil war in Iraq, but the majority of the population of Iraq being de facto allies of Iran.

The Iraq war was a disaster, an attack on iran of any form would be ten times worse.

Now, what to do about Iran being 3 years at the least away from the bomb?

Let me start by debunking the myth that those with the philosophy of a suicide bomber would have their finger on the button. This is ludicrious, for one reason a suicide bomber is willing to blow themselves up to kill as many of the enemy as possible. However asking the suicide bomber is he is willing to kill himself, thousands of the enemy only if he/she kills everyone they ever knew, loved or those he/she knew loved. I doubt that they would push the button. M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) still applies as Iran even though its a theocracy is still a country, full of people. Who as a whole dont want to die. The leadership being in a priviledged position do not want to die either.

Iran having a theoretical nuclear bomb isnt dangerous because Iran will launch it at israel. It is dangerous because the bomb could theoretically end up in the hands of a suicide bomber, perhaps hezbollah(who havent attacked USA YET, but would if iran was attacked) who could detonate it anywhere in the world.

Now, this is a storyline straight out of a thriller.

The more immediate threat to US security and economy is the fact that Iran is threatening to price its oil exports in Euro instead of dollars. Saddam threatened to do the same thing prior to invasion.

This threatens US economic + military hegemony particularly because the US economy is quite fragile at the moment.

The petrodollar is the backbone of the US military and economic might.

This makes economic and military sense in the eyes of Iran.

Now, the question is will the US defend its economic interests? Not will it attack Iran because it may have a nuke in 3 years.

The nuke scare is simply a way to manufacture consent amongst the electorate. As can be seen in some of these posts Fear can convince people of almost anything, no matter how insane.

[Wilbo26]

Well said hempathy. What can we do to stop them from moving to the Euro? Are they wanting a regime change so they can install a puppet that will keep them on the dollar? Thats just insane. I simply don't think we have the military power to take them out without blowing up half of the civilians in the country, and nobody will stomach something like that.

[gil1]

Part of the problem is, even if Iran's having nukes IS a bad idea, we're in a crippled position to deal with it, because we've overextended ourselves and pissed away our good will with other nations because of Iraq.

Now, if Bushco had gone into Afghanistan, and focused efforts on really rebuilding there after the initial strike, We would look like good guys now, have the support of other nations...

Jackass has painted us into a corner.

And that decisiveness some people love is really arrogance, and has caused this situation.

[I Am Chris]

Originally posted by Wilbo26 Do you trust our leaders with nukes? We are, after all, the only country to have used them. Personally I'm with bucket_brigadier on this one. Nukes are good for nothing but destroying the planet, and anyone who considers actually deploying them is insane.

 

 

I do actually. The issue isn't the US having nukes, it's Iran.

 

You didn't really answer the question.

 

DO YOU TRUST IRAN WITH NUKES?

 

Cause Iran with nukes scares the crap out of me.

 

Even if we are in a crippled position, we can't sit back and watch Iran stockpile them.

 

If Bush deals with Iran, he's the bad guy for adding more to our plate. If he doesn't deal with Iran, Iran uses nukes, and he's still the bad guy for watching it happen. No matter what he does, Democrats will always make him the bad guy, even if the right decision was made.

 

Lose-Lose.

[ChitownTerror]

Originally posted by I Am Chris I do actually. The issue isn't the US having nukes, it's Iran. You didn't really answer the question. DO YOU TRUST IRAN WITH NUKES? Cause Iran with nukes scares the crap out of me. Even if we are in a crippled position, we can't sit back and watch Iran stockpile them. If Bush deals with Iran, he's the bad guy for adding more to our plate. If he doesn't deal with Iran, Iran uses nukes, and he's still the bad guy for watching it happen. No matter what he does, Democrats will always make him the bad guy, even if the right decision was made. Lose-Lose.

 

 

I trust no one with nukes. Certainly not me, and probably not you. Would you want me to have the power to end millions of lives with the push of a button?

[gil1]

The Democrats aren't making Bush a bad guy.

He made himself a bad guy, by being an incompetent and a failure as a president.

By driving American into a hideous, unmanageable position - broke and in a failing, unnecessary war.

This is what the President is supposed to avoid.

Bush and THE REPUBLICANS are failures.

It's time for Republicans to accept that "Responsibility" they keep babbling about.

Clinton - Peace and Prosperity.
Bush - Poverty and War.

Face it. Bill Clinton was a much better president.

Measured by results.

[Wilbo26]

Originally posted by I Am Chris I do actually. The issue isn't the US having nukes, it's Iran. You didn't really answer the question. DO YOU TRUST IRAN WITH NUKES? Cause Iran with nukes scares the crap out of me. Even if we are in a crippled position, we can't sit back and watch Iran stockpile them. If Bush deals with Iran, he's the bad guy for adding more to our plate. If he doesn't deal with Iran, Iran uses nukes, and he's still the bad guy for watching it happen. No matter what he does, Democrats will always make him the bad guy, even if the right decision was made. Lose-Lose.

 

 

You honestly trust our leaders with nukes, even after it comes out that they are considering using them? Wow.

 

As Chitown also said, I trust no world leaders with nukes. But guess what, we have them, Israel has them, so obviously Iran is going to try and get them because it makes it a lot harder for us to invade them if they have these weapons.

 

Lets also not forget that there is no hard evidence that Iran's enrichment program is for anything other than trying to build power plants.

 

After the cluster{censored} in Iraq, I'm not going to believe a word our leaders and media report about Iran until I see some hard evidence that they're building nukes and actively planning on using them against us, which I don't think they're dumb enough to do.

 

And honestly, if a groupe wanted to get a nuclear bomb and attack a U.S. city, there are probably enough rogue weapons floating around, and its not exactly difficult to sneak over the US-Mexico border these days with one. Attacking Iran won't solve {censored}, won't keep somebody from hijacking a weapon, sneaking it into the US and using it against us. It will just give the terrorists one more excuse to rally more fanatics to their cause.

[hempathy]

As soon as you realise this is a war over pricing commodities and the USA's "Magic cheque book" (pricing worldwide oil sales in USD is a license to print money as everyone has to buy dollars before buying oil, which everyone needs). Then we realise that we have reached the peak oil period and oil supply is declining. It is a finite resource. What we are witnessing is a superpower defending its economy by spending trillions of borrowed money on the military.

What should really be happening is mass investment in future sustainable energy technologies, as opposed to spending money on fighting over the scraps of a finite resource. Not to mention pollution.

The bottom line is we are witnessing the fall of american capatilism in its beginning stages.

Bush himself has admitted "We are addicted to oil". Its too bad he comes from a long line of drug dealers and wont invest fully in what might actually provide a long term solution to a medium term crisis.



invading countries under humanitarian pretenses such as "Bringing democracy to the middle east". Is equally as ludicrious in terms of geopolitics.

Iran was a secular democracy up until 1953, at that time a guy was elected that was going to nationalise their oil industry.

A US + UK sponsored coup quickly happened. Then ofcourse a nice islamic revolution.

All the west has managed to bring to the Middle east culturally is a uniting of nationalism and fundamentalism.

[Wilbo26]

I'm excepting an Islaamic revolution in Iraq the second we leave, or of course they'll just elect one, as they practically have already.

Apparently our government has learned nothing over the years when it comes to coups, Taliban anyone? Stubborn as bricks these clown are.

Its ok though, we have Homeland Security and the Patriot Act to protect us from terrorists coming into middle America and gunning down our families in the streets. Wait? What? You mean you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning twice than you do dying in a terrorist attack? Oh well, LOOK. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!