and what's happening in Iraq will happen if we invade Iran. good plan.
Do you actually read threads?
Thanks.
You know, reading the plans for Operation Northwood and Mongoose; it strikes me that the administration today has actually acted relatively above board on Iraq.
Killing people on American soil; hijacking plans, SINKING an American WarShip - and pinning it on Castro!!!!
Say what you will about the build up to war, but ALL this administration had to do to justify Iraq, ultimately, was plant a little WMD evidence somewhere in the vast empty desert of that country "Hey, look what we found!!". No loss of life, nothing on American soil; just a little sleight of hand. Ultimately, they didn't do that.
They said there was WMD, they took us to war because of it, they didn't find WMD, and they have had to live with the consequences. Granted, neither of the operations proposed by the JCS were carried out, but there must have been an atmosphere in the WH where such things were considered. It seems, based on this evidence, that past administrations possibly haven't been as above board as the current one.
The current WH can't be absolved by comparing to Kennedy NOT accepting the advice to fabricate justifications to invade Cuba.
The Repugs came into office in 2000 with the policy of starting a war in Iraq.
It was a policy, a neo- ideology, decided upon, and a year or more before WTC.
Even with the WTC diversion (facilitated by the Exec's dereliction of duty), the WHIG stuck to its Iraq policy, head fabricated the Saddam-WTC link, and the WHIG cherry picked and hyped intelligence supporting Iraq WMD while suppressing/classifying all serious doubts about WMD (eg, slimiing Wilson/outing Plame).
NatSec people have said it was clear head came to the NatSec people with the Iraq war decision already made and pressuring NatSec to come up with the supporting evidence.
The Brits said the Iraq war decision was made and the WH was "fixing up" the evidence to support it.
Above board? G M A F B
Last edited by boutons_; 02-01-2007 at 10:23 AM.
Read Plan of Attack by Woodward. He actually supports what Boutons has just said, the war on Iraq was decided upon well before any evidence of WMD's or lack thereof, were "discovered".
However, I do agree with 101A, it is surprising that they never went in and just planted some WMD's so they could say, "I told you so".
Yeah, I guess the operative word in my original post would be "relatively" above board. As in: "Relative to what past administrations would have felt obliged to do to further their cause politically".
In other words: Not "Above Board" in an absolute sense.
Anything purposely planted would have gone through an autopsy of examination. Any weapons such as this could easily be traced back to it's origin. The world was waiting to see this evidence and it would have failed the test of scrutiny. I'm glad we didn't commit this fraudulent act.
sometimes
I don't think finding just a few WMDs would have been enough. In the drive up to the war they were saying there were stockpiles of immenent threat weapons. Toxins and biological/chemical weapons can be traced back to the weapons labs where the cultures were cultivated. Planting WMDs would have been more difficult than you think, and if it didn't work, it would have undermined the whole U.S. mission (whatever that may be).Say what you will about the build up to war, but ALL this administration had to do to justify Iraq, ultimately, was plant a little WMD evidence somewhere in the vast empty desert of that country "Hey, look what we found!!". No loss of life, nothing on American soil; just a little sleight of hand. Ultimately, they didn't do that.
Ouch!
Answers YahooBaa, baa, bush sheep.
Do you support the war?
Yes sir, yes sir!
Give-Us-More!
One for Afghanistan,
One for Iraq.
One for the surrender-monkey
whose name is Jacques Chirac.
Baa, baa, bush sheep.
Will you ever serve?
No sir, no sir,
I haven't got the nerve.
A flag, I will wave.
To the libs, I'll talk smack.
But one thing that I'll never do
is sign up for Iraq.
Baa, baa, bush sheep.
Have you any shame?
No sir, no sir,
For that you need a brain.
I get my facts from FOX News
Their pundits never lie.
They feed my mind a steady diet
of tasty freedom fries.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...110?hub=CanadaThe trial of an Iranian girl convicted of killing a man who attempted to rape her concluded Wednesday, according to a former Miss World Canada who has advocated on her behalf.
Nazanin Fatehi, 19, has had her case championed by former beauty pageant contestant Nazanin Afshin-Jam.
The four judges overseeing the case have agreed that the killing was not premeditated, so Afshin-Jam said she is hopeful Fatehi will avoid the death penalty and may even be released from custody.
"At this point, they might still give her a prison sentence or they might release her completely," Afshin-Jam told CTV Newsnet.....
Under Iran's strict laws on chas y, if Fatehi had allowed the men to rape her and her niece, the girls would have been subjected to 100 lashes.
If they had been married at the time they were raped they would likely have been found guilty of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning.
Self-defence is a valid defence for murder in Iran, but it depends largely on the cir stances. For example, the fact that Fatehi and her niece were in a park in the evening could have affected her defence.
So like us.....
Well, If that's all it takes, then let's invade Saudi Arabia too...
Yahoo NewsA Saudi Arabian judge sentenced 20 foreigners to receive lashes and spend several months in prison after convicting them of attending a party where alcohol was served and men and women danced, a newspaper reported Sunday.
The defendants were among 433 foreigners, including some 240 women, arrested by the kingdom's religious police for attending the party in Jiddah, the state-guided newspaper Okaz said. It did not identify the foreigners, give their nationalities or say when the party took place.
Judge Saud al-Boushi sentenced the 20 to prison terms of three to four months and ordered them to receive an unspecified number of lashes, the newspaper said. They have the right to appeal, it added.
The prosecutor general charged the 20 with "drinking, arranging for impudent party, mixed dancing and shooting a video for the party," Okaz said.
The paper said the rest of those arrested were awaiting trial.
Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam under which it bans alcohol and meetings between unrelated men and women.
The religious police, a force resented by many Saudis for interfering in personal lives, enjoys wide powers. Its officers roam malls, markets, universities and other public places looking for such infractions as unrelated men and women mingling, men skipping Islam's five daily prayers and women with strands of hair showing from under their veil.
In May, the Interior Ministry restricted the powers of the religious police to just arresting suspects, because the police sometimes had held people incommunicado and insisted on taking part in ensuing investigations.
Why leave any ambiguity?
Fact is, any attack on Iran may strengthen religious hard-liners hold on the country...
Christian Science MonitorSTANFORD, CALIF. - From the rhetoric of President Bush to his dispatch of Patriot air-defense systems and a second carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf, there are growing signs that the Bush administration is showing its willingness to solve the Iranian nuclear crisis with a preemptive military attack. The already tense US-Iran relationship is now a tinderbox.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was correct in stating recently that Iran is "acting in a very negative way" in the Middle East. The Islamic Republic trains and supports Hizbullah and Hamas. It provides aid and explosives to Iraqi Shiite militias who attack American soldiers. Most alarming, it seems determined to develop a nuclear bomb. This panics moderate Arab states and poses an existential threat to Israel. The ruling mullahs in Tehran terrorize their own citizens, especially pro-democracy groups.
Bombing Iran, however, will not resolve any of these dangers – it would exacerbate them. But where military strikes would fail, containment and comprehensive negotiations would succeed.
Contrary to conventional accounts, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is neither the most powerful official in Iran nor is he loved by the Iranian people. The authoritarian regime is not united behind Mr. Ahmadinejad and his policies, but divided and uncertain about who will prevail. The real kingpin in Iran is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, and his failing health has launched a succession struggle. On one side of this fight are Ahmadinejad, a cabal of leaders from the Revolutionary Guards, and the Basij (the militia- -gangs that terrorize the regime's opponents). On the other side is a loose coalition united by their disdain for Ahmadinejad's gross economic mismanagement and reckless hubris. This includes Iran's bulging generation of young people, along with businessmen, technocrats, reformists, allies of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, and even the conservative Motalefe Party.
After a year of rising s om, Ahmadinejad is starting to lose in this power struggle. He has not delivered on his campaign pledges to fight corruption or improve the lot of the working classes and the poor. In recent elections for local councils as well as for the powerful 80-man Council of Experts (entrusted with the task of choosing the next spiritual leader) Ahmadinejad and his allies suffered humiliating defeats.
To reverse his waning popular support, Ahmadinejad has tried to change the subject from his domestic failures to his foreign adventures. He knows there is only one thing that could bring the people back to him – a US military attack on Iran. His repulsive remarks about Israel and his nuclear bravado aim precisely to provoke such an attack, which would create the crisis conditions necessary for his faction to seize full power.
What is your purpose of mercilessly pimping Iran as some kind of peacenik paradise that is America's buddy?
I completely agree with that contention, but why act like the hardliners don't have a hold on the country in the first place?
Peacenik Paradise? Hardly. Much like the second video states, the art of dehumanizing your enemy is a common pre-war tactic. All I'm doing is showing that life in Iran isn't as backwards as our M$M portrays it to be.
because anything we do will just make the problems worse, including bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. Let's let the next generation or Iranians replace these religious hardliners or risk raising another generation of lost fundamentalists.
Do you want the link to your first post in this thread?
What if they don't replace them?
I'll take my chances versus the alternative.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote