Bush says force last resort in Iran

[Dan'O]

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of Saddam's links to terrorist groups from around the world, including Arab sites. Like I said before, it was never in question, thats why I didn't bother with negating .gov links. Look them up or blissfully ignore the facts it really doesn't matter to me.

http://www.tkb.org/RWExecquery_All.jsp?Que...&imageField.y=0

"2. They were assisting AL Queda both of which were false."

I already addressed the reasons. I already addressed WMD and I already addressed Al Queda. You guys keep bringing the same things up that I have already addressed over and over again. Maybe you didn't read my entire post above? If you did you are completely ignoring it as if it was never posted. I know this is tough for some of you as it may ruin your joyous past-time of bashing Bush and the US. I suspect I will see the same things rehashed time and time again though. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Edited August 15, 2005 by Dan'O

[sanchera1978]

Dan'o take it easy bro. I did read your post thats why i pasted part of one of the sites you linked. Yes Saddam did support Terrorist but how many other countries do the same yet we dont invade them do we. Pakistan is probably one of the biggest supporters but we do nothing to them. Bush is only one man it takes more then the president for us to go to war. To tell you the Truth i actually think Bush isnt such a bad fellow he just takes advice from the wrong people. I truly think he thinks he is doing good for the world and just doesnt seem to realize the mess he's making. And when you post stuff Dan it will be very rare the day you change someones mind by your post alone so dont worry if it seems we aren't listening we are we just still have the same belief as before. The info you may provide will only be part of the jigsaw puzzle. each person has to make up their own minds on what to believe.

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[Babs]

In the history of the Nuclear Age...Two atomic weapons have been used against a population and those were the A-bombs America dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which ended WWII in the Pacific.

Whom would you trust most with nuclear weapons?  America or a country who sponsers international terrorism?

789374[/snapback]

Yo!......that is a good!

[Babs]

Come on Iran, build a bomb...

you really did not make my day let me get that straight first off, you say that like you want WW3 to happen, well having family in Iran especially, i really dont want a war and millions of innocents to be killed, this is where we fundamentally differ

790333[/snapback]

You're talking with a proud member of the United States military-industrial establishment. I've been doing my part for years to be sure that if somebody uses a nuclear weapon against our country we annilate them. Just keep that in mind if Iran decides to build a bomb.

790368[/snapback]

Bravo!

[+joc]

the invasion of iraq fuelled the fire of terrorism, what do you think would/will happen if iran is invaded/attacked...?

I think if Iran is attacked it will be strategic, and the end result will be that they will not have a nuclear capability afterwards...which is the whole reason for attacking them anyway. The idea is to keep nukes out of the hands of rogue states and ultimately out of the hands of terrorists.

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

Edited August 16, 2005 by morpheas

[Dr_Strangelove]

babs:you're saying bravo to someone who gets excited at the thought of iran building a bomb just so it gives him an excuse to go in there and blow up millions of people, k

joc: you didnt really address my question, are you practicing for congress?

792133[/snapback]

Actually I wasn't excited. I don't get excited about doing what I've been trained to do. I just put the facts out there. If Iran builds a bomb they are a getting into a game they can only lose.

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[Dr_Strangelove]

They already have the ability to deliver the weapon Its just that my job gets interesting once they demonstrate they have a weapon and I really don't think Iran has any idea of what they are playing with.

If the lunatics in Iran test a weapon then they will have to consider people like me.

so you wont get an intsy bit excited when/if your job gets interesting?

792147[/snapback]

Nope, my job is always interesting, often a bit grim, but you never get excited. If I did I imagine they would pull my security screen. I just do my job the very best way I can.

[+joc]

joc: you didnt really address my question, are you practicing for congress?  

Oh, you wanted me to address the question based on your false premise...

I suppose alot of Iranians would be angry. But if they are angry at anyone other than the Mullahs then their anger is misguided.

[Celumnaz]

Seems in this day and age it'd behoove a nation to Not have the Nuke Bomb.

[Dr_Strangelove]

Seems in this day and age it'd behoove a nation to Not have the Nuke Bomb.

792159[/snapback]

Actually I agree but once you have one it is more difficult to get rid of them than you can imagine. Having nuclear weapons is opening a Pandora's box of infinite dark possibilities.

[Celumnaz]

but why would a country even endevor to start up that path nowadays?

[Dr_Strangelove]

but why would a country even endevor to start up that path nowadays?

792164[/snapback]

My personal theory is either fear or hatred; they fear somebody else who has the bomb or they wouldn't mind using such a bomb on somebody.

[Pannkakskungen]

How should the war been/be handled?

791568[/snapback]

First, officers, not Rumsfeld would have been responsible for drawing up the plans for the invasion and the subsequent "cooling down" period in Iraq. Their plans would have involved more troops, especially for the second phase where numbers are more important than firepower and brute force. More troops would have allowed patrols of the syrian and iranian borders, along the pipelines and it would also have allowed to have more troops visible in areas identified as potential "hot spots", mostly the so-called sunni triangle. More troops would also made it possible to attach regular troops to supply convoys without drawing these troops from other important missions.

To sum it up, more troops should have been used from day one, most of which would have been regular footsoldiers.

Edited August 16, 2005 by Pannkakskungen

[iaapac]

"Well, that may be the Mexican version of events....but The United States didn't start the war...Mexico started the war when it attacked US cavalry along the Rio Grande. The border was in dispute and had been for a long time before The US annexed The Republic of Texas. But it was the Mexican military that started the war."

I don't know how you could be more wrong. Washington politicians knew that the Battle of Palo Alto (the first conflict you refer to) was not located at the place military officials claimed. Almost every worthy historian will agree on that point. Abraham Lincoln was one of the most vocal critics of President Polk's claim that the battle happened on "United States territory." The lunatic Polk had given what he called the "Manifest Destiny" for the United States to expand its territorys from "sea to shining sea." During his campaign, he also promised the people that he would make Texas a state.

One of the laughing stocks in the historian's world is the monument in Brownsville, Texas claiming to be the location of the Battle of Palo Alto. In fact, the battle occurred closer to Monterrey and Lincoln stood in the Congress and challenged Polk with the words, "Show me the place!"

What's more, the U.S. did not "annex" Texas, it stole it. I live in Mexico, so do you think I have the right to form a group of gringos here and start a war? By any form of international law would this be legal? Well, that is what was done in Texas. The Americans there were visitors living on Mexican land. The formed an internal invasion that had no legal basis or right.

What is even worse is when textbooks teach kids that this was the "War of Liberation." It was not. The Americans had been treated fairly and were permitted to own land and have businesses but that wasn't enough. Spurred on by radicals like Austin, they wanted more with the same mentality that was causing the expansion onto Indian lands.

[Babs]

but why would a country even endevor to start up that path nowadays?

792164[/snapback]

My personal theory is either fear or hatred; they fear somebody else who has the bomb or they wouldn't mind using such a bomb on somebody.

792177[/snapback]

I think this is right.

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[Celumnaz]

So why is Iran pursuing the Nuke Morpheas?

Wouldn't it be better for them in the long run to Not have one?

Wouldn't that show they're not an agressor? Couldn't that money be better spent? Couldn't that technology be put to a better use?

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[Zackery00]

So why is Iran pursuing the Nuke Morpheas?

Wouldn't it be better for them in the long run to Not have one?

Wouldn't that show they're not an agressor?  Couldn't that money be better spent?  Couldn't that technology be put to a better use?

793677[/snapback]

Who is to say they are not our agressor? Perhaps they say they dont have them to make us secure at heart so with a push of a button, they have devastated us, like hitting Atlanta or somewhere. Personally, I think this whole deal is so cloak and dagger. No one can trust anyone else.

Edited August 16, 2005 by Zackery00

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[Celumnaz]

they already have them...

why is a new player interested in having them? They're only good for 1 thing, right?

Iran would have the support of the whole world if someone were to nuke them and it's known they don't have any. Sure many would die, but for centuries after they would be coddled and the agressor shamed into non-relivance and shunned into 3rd world status (or worse) regardless.

Why pursue it? Why, unless they intend to use it? This isn't the Cold War.

[morpheas]

-Post removed-