Bush says force last resort in Iran

[Dr_Strangelove]

America invaded Mexico no different then Germany invading Poland.

Wrong. As previously stated, the border dispute was ongoing long before Texas became a part of the United States. There was no 'border dispute' between Poland and Germany. Hitler invaded Poland. Period. And occupied the whole country.

790607[/snapback]

I might add, as a good American Polack, that our conduct in Mexico was not nearly as brutal as the Nazis in Poland.

[Deception]

Wrong. As previously stated, the border dispute was ongoing long before Texas became a part of the United States. There was no 'border dispute' between Poland and Germany. Hitler invaded Poland. Period. And occupied the whole country.

No sir you are wrong. Germany wanted a strip of the polish corridor to link Germany with East Prussia. The same as America wanted the north west so it could land along the pacific. The only reason America didn't annex Mexico was because it would have to pay the debts that Mexico owed Britain, France, and Spain.

And it's not really about the border dispute. America wanted California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and other parts of the now American south west. So they crossed the Nueces river. This was Mexican Territory. Once American cavalry advanced to the Rio that was an invasion. So Mexico did what any country would do and attacked the invaders. Thus leadening to the annexation of what is now the Southwestern US. Manifest Destiny is what it was called my friends.

[+joc]

I am not interested in debating the issue...it is off topic anyway.

[Deception]

I am not interested in debating the issue...it is off topic anyway.

Ok, and it is very off topic isn't it.

[Power2the1]

Couldn't the USA airforce just fly in, launch a tactical nuke or some kind of heavy duty bomb aimed at the plant, and that be that?

.

.

Or is an Iraqi-ish invasion what Bush is talking about?

790594[/snapback]

I don't think it will be an invasion. There are some nice 13,000 foot runways in Iraq for us to take advantage of. the Iranian facilities are dispersed and fortified; their would be a number of tactical air options.

790599[/snapback]

Well why the heck isn't the US air force doing more sorties against targets in Iraq? If theres a fleet sitting off shore, use it. The Gulf War, the US was determined to kick butt, and it used air power very effectivly. Now, everything seems pinned on the infantry. I seldom hear of massive air campaign of mass bombing runs used on terrorist buildings.

.

.

If the terrorists now that all they have to do is keep laying road bombs, booby traps, shooting at slow-ish moving US convoys...without fear of mass air attacks and devastating artillery strikes while they sleep, what chance does the US have of ever "winning" in Iraq?

[Dan'O]

Well why the heck isn't the US air force doing more sorties against targets in Iraq? If theres a fleet sitting off shore, use it. The Gulf War, the US was determined to kick butt, and it used air power very effectivly. Now, everything seems pinned on the infantry. I seldom hear of massive air campaign of mass bombing runs used on terrorist buildings.

If the terrorists now that all they have to do is keep laying road bombs, booby traps, shooting at slow-ish moving US convoys...without fear of mass air attacks and devastating artillery strikes while they sleep, what chance does the US have of ever "winning" in Iraq?

790650[/snapback]

They do perform airstrikes.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/12306103.htm

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=114153

They do them when they think they can avoid civilian casualties, which sadly is not always the case. There are no radar installations, air bases or other strategic sites to bomb.

Why would you need to run a "massive air campaign" against a building with some terrorists in it?

Its a long tough road to be sure.

[zephyr]

Well, let's see what we have here. A doctor who wants us to build a nuclear bomb so he can keep his job exciting by nuking millions of innocent people; nice job you got there doc! Then we have someone with strong illusions about whose friends the Al-Qaida terrorists really were to begin with. I wonder where these people were when the US and their primitive regional allies were offering Afghanistan on a golden platter to the Taliban and their terrorist friends. And now, the lunatics that schemed up all that terror action in Afghanistan have revised history and pointed their fingers toward Iran, with the naiive and the ill-informed cheering them on of course! Here's a nice, friendly suggestion to all those who wish to stay healthy: Keep your dirty hands off Iran!

[Dr_Strangelove]

Well, let's see what we have here. A doctor who wants us to build a nuclear bomb so he can keep his job exciting by nuking millions of innocent people; nice job you got there doc! Then we have someone with strong illusions about whose friends the Al-Qaida terrorists really were to begin with. I wonder where these people were when the US and their primitive regional allies were offering Afghanistan on a golden platter to the Taliban and their terrorist friends. And now, the lunatics that schemed up all that terror action in Afghanistan have revised history and pointed their fingers toward Iran, with the naiive and the ill-informed cheering them on of course! Here's a nice, friendly suggestion to all those who wish to stay healthy: Keep your dirty hands off Iran!

791081[/snapback]

Actually I'm not a real docter, just an engineer, but always loved the Dr.

Strangelove in the movie. My coworkers say their are a lot of similarities between us. I don't build the bombs; I just facilitate some of the infrastructure that goes into the systems that support our national security.

From were I sit its really all up to Iran. If you look at my posts I think you'll see that what I'm saying is that Iran should really think about if they want to build a bomb. If they do build one they are entering a new category of threat. The United States would have the option of using its nuclear arsenal.

I'm certain there are people within our Pentagon and places like Mount Weather that are already drawing up all sorts of war plans for Iran. These sames sorts of people have been drawing up the same sorts of plans for every other potential threat against the United States since the Second World War. They do this for their living just like I do what I do for mine. If Iran gets a bomb they enter a new category of threat for all of us.

The thing about having a nuke is that you are now eligible to be nuked. The United States accepted that possibility through the whole Cold War. Now if Iran decides to have a nuke they will join the same grim little club. I would actually say that Iran doesn't need to worry as much about what George Bush might do as what Israel might do. I haven't checked but I do believe that Israel has strategic systems that can reach Iraq. Just throw some drop tanks on those F-15s of theirs or maybe check the range and lift on their latest Jerichos.

[Baku]

I think you are all missing a basic fundamental point here.  Iran in and of itself having nuclear weapons is not the issue.  We are not afraid Iran is going to nuke Israel for instance.  Mutually assured destruction still carries the day in the nuclear club.

The problem is the terrorist.  Iran has close ties with Al Queda and if they become a member of the Nuclear Club....the real fear is that some of those weapons would find there way into the Terrorist Club...which if you will remember is what the war in Iraq is really all about.

790551[/snapback]

First of all terrorist clubs like Al Queda were made by the US during the

Sovjet-Afgan war, so the US made the terrorist, but later on they turned against each other.

Seconly what on earth makes you think that Iran would have ''close ties'' with terrorists. You shouldnt just make things up if you cant back them up.

Third Iran is making a nuclear facility for CIVILIAN usage. There are camere's everywere in the building, if a ''bomb'' would pop out everyone would know about it. And it is vital for Iran to have a alternative energy source, because oil isnt very cheap way to produde energy, and its not very clean either. And the reason why its underground, because if something would go wrong, they wouldnt have a second Tsjernobyl, so a underground base is a pretty good idea. Oh and by the way, the nuclear facility at Brushehr, Iran is being built under an agreement between the Russian and Iranian governments for $800-million. So even Russia is into this.

So nobody is joining the ''nuke club'' for now, stay on topic people, dont start imagining things, or to predict or whatever it is.

And DrStrange snap out your psychotic dream, how would you feel like it somebody dropped a bomb on your head and all the once you loved. Not that pride and patriotic ey. So you can stop talking macho and crap, not impressing anyone. Your only making a fool out of yourself, just like my monkey in my sign

Edited August 15, 2005 by Baku

[bathory]

Iran is being built under an agreement between the Russian and Iranian governments for $800-million. So even Russia is into this.

france helped build the Iraqi nuclear reactor lol

[I am me]

Name one war the United States of America has started.

790507[/snapback]

Now if you are going by "who shot first" as it seems you are. The USA invaded Iraq once and fought a war against it twice. The USA invaded Afghanistan. These are just current or recent wars.

I do not think there has been a war that the USA has been in since maybe the civil war that the politicians have not wanted to enter. They find ways to draw the USA into these wars. It is always strangely ironic that some event takes place at the right time to allow the politicians to drag the country into war.

Edited August 15, 2005 by I am me

[Watzel]

Lets see, US fought in Germany to stop their invasion of Europe. Stopped Japan's invasion of China, Philippines, South Asia. Assisted the South Vietnamese against the invasion of the North Vietamese. Help Kuwait from the invading Iraqi's. Attacked Afganistan when the people that were responsible for the 9/11 attack on the US were living there and being protected by the Taliban. Removed a muderous dictator from Iraq and set up a consitution to give the people there more freedom.

Yep, we really are a mean and nasty bunch of war mongers, huh?

[I am me]

Lets see, US fought in Germany to stop their invasion of Europe. Stopped Japan's invasion of China, Philippines, South Asia. Assisted the South Vietnamese against the invasion of the North Vietamese.  Help Kuwait from the invading Iraqi's. Attacked Afganistan when the people that were responsible for the 9/11 attack on the US were living there and being protected by the Taliban.  Removed a muderous dictator from Iraq and set up a consitution to give the people there more freedom.

Yep, we really are a mean and nasty bunch of war mongers, huh?

791326[/snapback]

Kind of funny that none of the reasons were to stop invading armies from taking over the USA. That is what the military was for. Not to be a world police force. The German beast durring WWII was created because Wilson wanted to enter WWI and found a way to do so. Germany was so crippled with post war restrictions and debt it fell into the hands of a crazy man like Hitler.

Where was the world police when the USA killed off Indians to expand into the west? I guess it was the USA's duty to fend off the Japanese when they expanded in Asia though?

The USA military should exist to defend the USA, but it doesn't.

Edited August 15, 2005 by I am me

[sanchera1978]

Hey thats why theres a movie about the USA being the world police. If it wasn't true there wouldnt be a movie about it. The US govt are hypocrites they can do whatever they please but no other country better try the same becuase they will call them on it. Your point on the Native Americans says it all.

[Pannkakskungen]

Lets see, US fought in Germany to stop their invasion of Europe. Stopped Japan's invasion of China, Philippines, South Asia. Assisted the South Vietnamese against the invasion of the North Vietamese.  Help Kuwait from the invading Iraqi's. Attacked Afganistan when the people that were responsible for the 9/11 attack on the US were living there and being protected by the Taliban.  Removed a muderous dictator from Iraq and set up a consitution to give the people there more freedom.

Yep, we really are a mean and nasty bunch of war mongers, huh?

791326[/snapback]

Funny picture of history you paint here.

The US did not stop Germany invade Europe, how can Germany invade a continent they belong to in the first place, but that is besides the point, Germany had invaded the following countries before she declared war on the US, thats right, they declared war on the US, not the other way around. In 1939 Hitler took Czechoslovakia, without a fight though, the Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, France, Greece, Yugoslavia, USSR, these are just the european countries Hitler invaded he of course also sent a force to North Africa to help the incompetent italians.

Regarding Japan, Japan invaded China as early as 1931. The Philippines were quickly invaded and taken, same with Singapore, Thailand, french Indochina, Malay, dutch east Indies in 1941.

Funny you mentioned Vietnam as the US involvement wasn't strictly a war as the US never declared war on North Vietnam.

Help Kuwait, well, the first Gulf War was a UN mission, not a US mission, it was the UN that decided that Iraq needed to be removed from Kuwait. That the US was the biggest player involved in the war is another thing.

Yes, the US and allies removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, a very good thing, but did nothing about the country that had supported the Talibans and Al-Qaida the most, namely pakistan.

Yes, removing Saddam was a good thing, no doubt about that, just that the war should have been handled better.

[Dan'O]

Yes, removing Saddam was a good thing, no doubt about that, just that the war should have been handled better.

791523[/snapback]

How should the war been/be handled?

[sanchera1978]

They could have told us the real reasons why they wanted to go to war instead of telling lies to get us to support the war. .. They took advantage of the state of mind of the american people. It amazes me that half the population doesnt get bother by the facts.

[Dan'O]

I just said the other day that I find it funny when people say that large, important decisions are made because of a one or two reasons. Declaring that anything that is critically important is or was done because of one or two specific reasons is ignorant and shows a lack of common sense. But it is somewhat understandable though as Bush's speeches leading up the war in Iraq contained far too many references to WMD. But, in over 40 of his speeches from the beginning of 2001 to the start of the war he outlined many reasons. From WMD to generalized threats and aggression.

This is from other posts I made some time ago and I'm not sure how many of the links still work.

There were many reasons for going into Iraq.

President Bush did not decide the war in Iraq alone. A majority of the American public's representatives (Congress) passed the use of force. Not only that but "other" countries went in to take Saddam and his regime out. It was not just Bush.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030321-4.html

Saddam Hussien was clearly interested in chemical, biological and nuclear programs. The byproducts of these programs could (did?) or would have ended up in terrorist hands which he had known ties with. Besides threatening neighboring countries he actually did use chemical weapons against Iran and his own oppressed civilian population with devastating and horrific consequences. Besides using chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq, the regime also killed hundreds of thousands using various conventional methods. Saddam had received legitimate chemicals under the auspices of genuine medical and agricultural work from more then western companies. He received them from India, Japan, China and Russian companies too.

http://www.answers.com/topic/halabja-poison-gas-attack

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_we...emiraqgas2.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2855139.stm

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en.../27_saddam.html.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/17/iraq.chemical.suit/

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/dm01/US/Iraqs-Real...pons-Threat.htm

http://expage.com/notowar6

According to Czech Interior minister Stanislav Gross and other Czech security officials, 9/11 terrorist Mohammed Atta met at least once with an Iraqi intelligence agent during one of two trips to the Czech republic. Sadly, this could not be verified through audio or photographic evidence. But IMO this was justification enough to take him out.

http://www.spiritoftruth.org/iraqlinks.htm

http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1684.cfm

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/Nati...essages/41.html

http://prague.tv/pill/article.php?name=pragueconnection

http://www.praguepost.cz/news071101b.html

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/1.../story27874.asp

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/...inv.czech.atta/

Intelligence on Saddam’s WMD programs came from many sources. It was not just from the CIA. It came from The UN, ex-Iraqi's and other sources. In fact the UN said Iraq was in violation based on the evidence they themselves had gathered and presented to the US. Although they have not found stockpiles of ready to use WMDs, they have found older buried munitions containing chemical agents and trace amounts on and in various facilities and mobile labs. Another reason to have stopped Saddam's reign of horror.

http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/uns_chro.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2761261.stm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=sep91albright

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/18/Worldand...nd_deadly.shtml

http://www.harvardindependent.com/main.cfm...ynid/63884.html

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...-2002/story.htm

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/03/980302-iraq-5.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect3.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_C...Resolution_1441

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/iraq.resolution/

http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2003/02-25.htm

I am not sure what else to say here... I think I have addressed and countered most of the anti-US posts I have come across online with solid facts backed up by multiple informative links. And may I point out that many of the links provided were neutral. In fact I made it a point to provide as many neutral links as possible. Most of the links I see countering my comments are from far left conspiracy web sites that are clearly anti-US. Oh sure I know it is the hip thing to do right now...bash the USA. its fun. It makes you feel better. I will not go into the defense mechanisms that are often a result of various neurotic anxieties and other pathological disorders.

And before you say that I am a sheep, chickenhawk, neo con or any other derogatory term I must point out that I do NOT agree with every Bush policy. There are things that I do not agree with. I am not a "blind, brain washed Bush supporter" as some here have negatively put forward.

Edited August 15, 2005 by Dan'O

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[Dan'O]

could you give specific links which provide evidence saddam had terrorist ties please?

791782[/snapback]

Saddam's links with various terrorist groups is well known. I don't think that in itself was ever in question.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=7702

http://216.26.163.62/2003/guest_holton_2_06.html

Edited August 15, 2005 by Dan'O

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[sanchera1978]

Would Iraq have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists?

Experts disagree. The Bush administration played up this possibility, but some experts doubt that Saddam would have been so reckless, as his goal was to avoid a U.S. invasion. In October 2002, CIA Director Tenet said that the CIA thought Saddam was unlikely to conduct terrorist attacks against the United States--unless a U.S.-led attack appeared imminent. In that case, Saddam might "decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." Such an attack failed to materialize.

[Dan'O]

Your links refer specifically to al-Qaida morpheas. I already addressed this.

And I already addressed the aspects of just having one or two reasons for war sanchera.

[I am me]

could you give specific links which provide evidence saddam had terrorist ties please?

791782[/snapback]

Saddam's links with various terrorist groups is well known. I don't think that in itself was ever in question.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=7702

http://216.26.163.62/2003/guest_holton_2_06.html

791786[/snapback]

anything the government owns i would discredit. they are the ones who lied and mislead the public. i would assume that those links are propaganda.

[sanchera1978]

I was just posting something i found interesting from your orginal link. I understand there are always more then 1-2 reasons for going to war. What I think is laughable is that there main 2 reasons for invading Iraq was becuase 1. WMD"s 2. They were assisting AL Queda both of which were false.

But its too late we need to fix what we started. I just hope that the US isnt stupid enought to attack Iran using the same tactics.