Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Apr 2, 2006.
How does the Telegraph know this?
Moles. They're everywhere these days, I guess because so many even inside the establishment are sick of this.
This is stupid... does the US government not learn for its mistakes?? someone assassinate Bush, or at least get him out of power. that was a joke, don't send the FBI after me
Hmm. Well anyway, assuming the Telegraph isn't just diggin' dirt. It certainly does sound a bit ominous. I can't believe the British government would *dare* to become involved with this. If they need to get the propaganda machine into gear to convince the masses of an iminent threat to Britain, they'll have a tough job this time.
But if all they are contributing is AWACS support, they probably wouldn't feel they had to ask...
Would you expect anything less? They would be in violation of the demands.
Very true I suppose. Not much risk to the troops. Enough to be tarred with the same brush, though...
Being in violation of demands - which may or may not be denying Iran's rights according to the treaty - is not supposed to automatically trigger a strike. This is a problem with George's brain processes we've come across before.
good idea. we should then bomb israel and, afterwards, ourselves.
also, could you post a screenshot of your desktop? i want to see if you're using a black and white color scheme.
I have really mixed feelings about this.
I've felt that some sort of action was almost inevitable, given Iran's belligerence. Nobody's happy at the idea of "kooks with nukes".
OTOH there's this inescapable aura of deja vu regarding the US-UK attitude of "We'll go in with or without the UN's approval."
Bush and Blair, leading another charge. Oh my God....
They both remind me of that old TV show character Sledge Hammer, who used to say, "Trust me; I know what I'm doing," right before making a total disaster of things.
Here we go again indeed.
Unfortunately, almost every country with nukes is run by kooks. Do you think there might be a connection?
First, a strike on Iran's production facilities only postpones their acquisition of a nuclear bomb, it doesn't eliminate it. And after a strike, their facilities will be hardened even further to prevent a recurrence. If they have to, they will bury it in a building immune to anything but a nuclear bomb, and they'll put the building in the middle of a city for protection. Or they'll tunnel into a mountain like we did in Colorado.
Second, even if we assume that this time the Bush administration isn't just crying 'wolf', a Bush/Blair led attack on another Muslim country will create new waves of terrorists who will be looking even harder for ways to harm us.
I love how the right finds the UN so relevant when it can be used to further their goals, and so irrelevant when they can't be used. All these righties who crow about how bad it is that Iran(q) is in violation of UN resolutions scoff at allowing the UN to have any say over what the US does. It smacks of elitist hypocrisy.
Oh and by the way, if Iran was a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power, do you suppose they'd be in violation of ANY resolutions?
I don't undersstand how our leaders think a military strike will *end* the problem. In Iraq it was what *started* the problem.
I'm also kinda pissed that Iran is in violation of no treaties, but Bush and Blair are talking like they're shooting babies. Their overreaction and unreasonable stance (considering Iran's treaty obligations) has hardened opinion in Iran and shown that they themselves don't care to actually enforce the law, they just want to rule the world.
Oh no, no, no. Right after Iran, we'll be attacking Israel for their failure to comply with Security Council resolutions. No doubt about it. I mean, what choice do we have?
None. It is the logical choice. And by the way it is about time we stood up and showed (fill in the blank) who's boss.
Our armies will meet at the plains of Meggido, no doubt?
Anybody else think Iran stepped up it's nuclear program because of what we've been doing? The whole Iraq invasion and a wag of the finger toward Iran, as if saying "you're next". The truth is, they probably can be dangerous and might have aided terrorism, but no one is going to believe Georgie boy now thanks to our many mistakes elsewhere. As said, boy who cried wolf type thing. What would we do anyway? We're still stuck in Iraq, and even if we left, we're not ready for another preemptive war for dubious reasons. Iran probably knows this, so they act tough knowing nothing will be done about it.
I guess they don't know Bush/Blair very well, do they?
Solvs, I agree. I think Iran has gotten twitchy because of our recent talk and actions. I also think the Bush + Blair would gladly invade if they could come up with the troops.
It's fun this "pre-emptive" excuse we've come up with now, isn't it? I mean, even if we left Iran to it's own devices it would take almost ten years for them to develop a nuclear weapon (unless, of course, they bought one off of our good friend and ally Pakistan). At what point does pre-emptive turn into a regular, old-fashioned attack? 6 months to the bomb? A year? 5 years? Or whenever W needs a poll push?