His posts are a nice counterbalance to your cheerleading fluff with no substance Jeff. 
Don’t be afraid to consider the posts you disagree with. You don’t have to change your mind, but underneath most stories or articles are the kernels of issues that are important.
As long as it is a free country everyone has the right to voice their opinion. Enough of the “you must be a traitor” if you don’t believe everything the administration says claptrap.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
JusttheFacts,
Have you ever considered that YOU are also going to lose if we lose in Iraq?
Your initial, “see I told you so” horseshit will eventually wear off.
Do us all a favor and shitcan the “I told you so crap.” If America loses, so do you.
JeffR[/quote]
No shit.
I happen to support America 100%. The whole purpose of this post was basically to say, let’s not start on Iran so soon while Iraq is such a mess.
Heaven forbid common sense would suddenly rear it’s ugly head. You guys can’t be so stupid to think Iran is a good idea at the moment.
Unfortunately I was trying to point out that Israel WILL start something. Do you think we just stand on the side lines at that point? Do you think that’s in AMERICA’S best interest?
You want to chastise me for being realistic, as if we should all just joyously get behind an administration that doesn’t listen to any expert military advise and outright lies and fabricates intelligence to do what they want…then lands us in a situation that is the exact opposite of how they described it, yet it is EXACTLY how all the analyst predicted leading up to the war!
Now they want to do it all over again, only bigger!
Maybe I could actually get behind Iraq now that we’re there, but now we’re talking about Iran already.
Hey, let’s all rally behind the idiots. At the present moment the US seems to be like some dufus knocking down hornet’s nests with a short stick, and you guys act like it’s a good idea.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
JusttheFacts,
Have you ever considered that YOU are also going to lose if we lose in Iraq?
Your initial, “see I told you so” horseshit will eventually wear off.
What if we listen to your gloom and doom, decide we can’t win?
Then what? Pull out?
Is that what you want?
Do you hope we lose the will to wage this war?
This is what it is boiling down to now.
[/quote]
Jeffy, maybe it just kind of “slips your mind” that your boy George W “Fucking Dipshit” Bush has put us in this no-win situation in the first place. But that doesn’t matter, if we were “good Americans” we’d get on board and support the war effort. And we need to re-elect “Fucking Dipshit” because hey, he’s a “war president” and we’ll need him to pull us out of the quagmire he put us in in the first place.
The really scary part is that the stupid cocksuckers in the Pentagon who started this shit already have a “plan” (maybe they learned something from their fuck up in Iraq, but that’s highly doubtful) and are dying to invade Iran. If things DIDN’T suck in Iraq we’d already be marching on Tehran now. As it stands now we probably won’t invade until January, providing “fucking dipshit” can steal another one.
Oh but it’s all justified, cause Libya had some WMD and we didn’t have to invade them. Good call.
JustTheFacts,
First of all, what is this invading Iran bullshit?
I read your post. What a bunch of bull.
How high do you want to wager?
Tell you what, if we launch any sort of strike against Iran before the November elections (like your looney article suggests) I’ll scream “I LOVE JOHN KERRY. HE IS CONSISTENT AND RIGHT ON ABOUT EVERY ISSUE!!!” Then I’ll leave the forum forever.
When we launch no strikes against Iran, you don’t have to exclaim anything at all. Just leave forever. Deal?
If you believe this crap, then you will stand behind it.
Want to bet?
Hey tme, it’s time to turn of the IV’s, close your eyes, and think happy thoughts. You are in the Gore-Zone. Come back to us!!!
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
JustTheFacts,
First of all, what is this invading Iran bullshit?
I read your post. What a bunch of bull.
How high do you want to wager?
Tell you what, if we launch any sort of strike against Iran before the November elections (like your looney article suggests) I’ll scream “I LOVE JOHN KERRY. HE IS CONSISTENT AND RIGHT ON ABOUT EVERY ISSUE!!!” Then I’ll leave the forum forever.
When we launch no strikes against Iran, you don’t have to exclaim anything at all. Just leave forever. Deal?
If you believe this crap, then you will stand behind it.
Want to bet?
Hey tme, it’s time to turn of the IV’s, close your eyes, and think happy thoughts. You are in the Gore-Zone. Come back to us!!!
JeffR[/quote]
I didn’t say WE would start it, I said Israel would…but WE would have to finish it.
Although with Israel’s grandstanding and Powell “not ruling it out”, Iran may not wait.
Somehow if it were totally up to us I think we’d wait till after the election. If Israel does it, it’s not like we had control of that, right?
This has been on the Neo-Con agenda for 10 years, just like Iraq. Somehow I don’t see it ending just in “negotiations”.
If nothing happens I will gladly leave the forum…I won’t even make you scream, I LOVE JOHN KERRY!
Unless you really want to.
U.S. to transfer high-tech arsenal to Israel
[i]Strike against Iranian reactors is feared
Thursday, September 23, 2004
By David Wood
Newhouse News Service[/i]
WASHINGTON - Amid growing concern that Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s budding nuclear program, the United States is moving ahead with the transfer to Israel of 5,000 heavy, precision-guided bombs, including 500 “earth-penetrating” 2,000-pound bombs designed for use against underground facilities.
The $319 million arms transfer, proposed by the Bush administration June 1, went ahead after Congress took no action during its 30-day review period, Defense Security Cooperation Agency spokesman Jose Ibarra said Wednesday. The deal is being financed from this year’s $2.16 billion military assistance grant to Israel.
The transfer also includes 2,500 2,000-pound Mark-84 bombs, 500 1,000-pound Mark-83 bombs, 1,500 500-pound Mark-82 bombs and live fuses. All the bombs are being fitted with the Joint Direct Air Munitions kit, which uses inertial guidance and beacons from U.S. military global positioning satellites for deadly accuracy.
An Israeli strike, and the wider war it might touch off, also could send oil prices skyrocketing and jeopardize the global economy, analysts say.
Jay Greer, an official at the State Department’s political-military bureau, which oversees arms sales and transfers, said giving the weapons to Israel “will in our view enhance U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, and help maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region.”
Asked whether the transfer makes sense amid the growing confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program, Greer said, “I can’t talk about that.”
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1095919998289610.xml
Powell refuses to rule out attack on Iran
[i]The US Secretary of State said in New York yesterday that “every nation has all options available to it.”
Ran Dagoni, Washington
23 Sep 04[/i]
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has refused to rule out the use of military force against Iran to prevent it from pursuing its nuclear arms program.
Speaking at a press conference in New York yesterday, Powell said that, in his talks with his Israeli opposite number Minister of Foreign Affairs Silvan Shalom, he had not discussed attacking Iran but rather the use of diplomatic means of persuading Teheran to dispel the international community’s fears about its nuclear program.
“I am not aware of any plans to attack Iran,” Powell said, but added, “Every nation has all options available to it…We’re talking about diplomacy and political efforts to stop this movement on the part of the Iranians toward a nuclear weapon and we’re not talking about strikes. But every option always of course remains on the table.”
The timing of Powell’s remarks, shortly after it became known that the US had decided to sell Israel a large quantity of “bunker busting” bombs, immediately made observers judge that Washington was stepping up pressure on Iran.
Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites
DOHA (AFP) Aug 18, 2004
Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned Wednesday that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.
“We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly,” Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.
JusttheFacts,
I respect the fact that you are willing to stand up for your beliefs. When nothing happens, I’m going to hold you to your promise.
OF COURSE, POWELL SAID, “NO COMMENT.”
Do I have to spell everything out for you?
IT’S CALLED DETERRANCE!!!
What if he said, “We would never attack Iran under any circumstances. Especially when we have our hands full rebuilding two countries. We are sorry, Israel, you are on your own because we are busy.”
THINK!!!
What would Iran do then?
Do you think there is a snowball’s chance in hell that they would respond to the threats from the U.N. “Security Council?” How about the IEA?
What brings dictators and repressive regimes to the table?
The credible threat of force.
Read your history, recent and ancient.
Please!!!
Don’t you think that by keeping them guessing, we are practicing smart diplomacy?
Ever heard of the Taiwan situation? China is not exactly sure how far we are willing to go.
I’ll tell you exactly what will happen, Israel will threaten, we will make a public “secret” of moving arms to Israel. Don’t flatter yourself as some sort of “Private Eye.” The Government wants you to disseminate that information.
Again, I’m looking forward to your silence.
JeffR
We are keeping them off balance.
Now I hope that Iranian Government officials aren’t reading this post!!!
JeffR
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites
DOHA (AFP) Aug 18, 2004
Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned Wednesday that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.
“We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly,” Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040818194114.p2i3ppzv.html[/quote]
That’s the scariest thing I’ve read latetly.
On what JustTheFacts wrote:
note that I am showing any tendency towards either side, but a political science professor’s opinion means jack shit, it has nothing to do with policy and is just his ideas. there is NO popular support to attack Iran, and it WILL NOT happen. you have no facts or statements by US officials to back any of this up.
[quote]OF COURSE, POWELL SAID, “NO COMMENT.”
Do I have to spell everything out for you?
IT’S CALLED DETERRANCE!!!
What if he said, “We would never attack Iran under any circumstances. Especially when we have our hands full rebuilding two countries. We are sorry, Israel, you are on your own because we are busy.”
THINK!!!
What if he said, “We would never attack Iran under any circumstances. Especially when we have our hands full rebuilding two countries. We are sorry, Israel, you are on your own because we are busy.”
THINK!!!
What would Iran do then?
Do you think there is a snowball’s chance in hell that they would respond to the threats from the U.N. “Security Council?” How about the IEA?
What brings dictators and repressive regimes to the table?
The credible threat of force.
Read your history, recent and ancient.
Please!!!
Don’t you think that by keeping them guessing, we are practicing smart diplomacy?
Ever heard of the Taiwan situation? China is not exactly sure how far we are willing to go.
I’ll tell you exactly what will happen, Israel will threaten, we will make a public “secret” of moving arms to Israel. Don’t flatter yourself as some sort of “Private Eye.” The Government wants you to disseminate that information.
Again, I’m looking forward to your silence.
JeffR
We are keeping them off balance.
Now I hope that Iranian Government officials aren’t reading this post!!![/quote]
First off, a little advise. Leave the windows open while your painting.
Second, I happen to know my history quite well. In fact most recent history recalls us giving Iraq a countdown to give up WMD’s that we just knew “for sure” they had. After going in and killing 15,000 civilians and not finding shit, suddenly it turns into a war of “liberation”. Then everyone calls them ungrateful bastards for wanting us out.
The fact of the matter is, it was NEVER about WMD’s or liberation since Iraq happened to be #1 on the Neo-Con hit list for almost 10 years. Their intentions for Iraq and the Middle East have certainly been no secret. No one ever thought one day their insane ideas would someday become policy but here we are.
So onto #2 in the “Axis of Evil”…Iran. Guess what, they just saw what we did with Iraq…they know they’re on our “list”. Do you think they just sit back and wait or that we’re bluffing?
You’ve probably never read the PNAC/Neo-Con plan called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, but I can assure you the rest of the world has.
All of Europe unanimously considers considers Israel to be the #1 biggest threat to world peace, just ahead of the US. The only thing most Americans know about foreign policy are that Arabs hate us because of our “freedoms” and our cable TV…it’s time to get a clue!
Poll controversy as Israel and US labelled biggest threats to World peace
By Andrew Beatty
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Over half of Europeans think that Israel now presents the biggest threat to world peace according to a controversial poll requested by the European Commission.
Israeli officials dismissed the results of the poll as propaganda.
According to sources, a massive 59 percent of Europeans said they believed that Israel is the biggest obstacle to world peace.
The whole world sees what Israel and America are trying to do! If our policy involves pre-emptive strikes on every perceived threat then what do you think those countries are going to do to deter that threat?
How about all the countries are getting agitated because WE - the US, broke the nuclear arms treaty by manufacturing a new class of nuclear weapons called “mini-nukes”. Why would we even have to do that…what could be the only purpose for that? The US already has a bigger arsenal of weapons than all the other countries combined.
Is it any wonder why all of Europe sees Israel as the biggest threat, considering they never signed the nuclear treaty in the first place and are guaranteed to have nuclear weapons. If Iran goes nuclear, that would put a damper on Israel’s plans
Now we’re dickin’ around and everyone’s getting jumpy, as evidenced by more good news.
North Korea warns U.S., Japan of ‘nuclear sea of fire’
Friday, September 24, 2004
By Barbara Demick, Los Angeles Times
SEOUL, South Korea – In an unusually explicit threat to its neighbor yesterday, North Korea warned that Japan would be immersed in a “nuclear sea of fire” if the United States were to attack the North.
The threat came as Japanese and South Korean government officials expressed fears that North Korea was preparing to test a ballistic missile. Intelligence satellites have detected unusual movements of vehicles and personnel massing around missile bases on the east coast, South Korean and Japanese officials reported. South Korea yesterday said it believed that the movements were connected with annual military games taking place near the missile bases.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told reporters yesterday that a missile test “would be a very troubling matter.”
Japan reportedly dispatched surveillance aircraft and a destroyer ship equipped with an Aegis weapons system, which allows it to track and destroy multiple aircraft targets.
Bellicose language from Pyongyang is usually dismissed as rhetoric, but this threat seems certain to inflame tensions.
“If the United States ignites a nuclear war in this part of the world, then U.S. bases in Japan would serve as a detonating fuse that would plunge Japan into a nuclear sea of fire,” North Korea’s paper, Rodong Sinmun, said in a commentary carried by the KCNA news agency. “If it wants to maintain peace and live safely, Japan should not become an appendage of the war strategy of American imperialism.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04268/384518.stm
It’s quite evident that this administration is more concerned with advancing Israel’s agenda than our own, it’s time people opened their eyes. By rushing us into a war with Iraq, all they have done is shown the world our vulnerabilities and enable other countries to assume a more aggressive stance.
This BIPARTISAN group happen to know a little bit about foreign policy…Diplomats & Military Commanders for Change, maybe we should listen:
"Iran and North Korea, the other two members of the “Axis of Evil”, have not been intimidated by threats of unilateral US preemptive action. Nor have they responded to ambivalent United States diplomacy. As a result, North Korea is apparently producing more nuclear weapons and Iran has continued to develop its nuclear capacity. Due to the situation in Iraq, Iran is also assuming an increasingly powerful regional role.
Absent a truly serious visible effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or restrain the aggressive Israeli tactics on the ground, the US is increasingly identified in the Arab world as totally supportive of Israeli PM Sharon’s policies. This further exacerbates worldwide Muslim anger at the US over Iraq, undercuts efforts at reform, and increases likelihood of future anti-US terrorism among young people.
In short, progress in the struggle against terrorism has been offset by faulty policy. The overall result is that the Bush Administration’s war in Iraq leaves the United States less secure rather than more."
http://www.diplomatsforchange.com/mission/mission.shtml
One last thing, Rumsfeld said we may pull out of Iraq finally, which I thought was a good thing…but then I thought, what if they’re redeploying to Iran? I guess we’ll see.
[quote]RepubCarrier:
there is NO popular support to attack Iran, and it WILL NOT happen. you have no facts or statements by US officials to back any of this up.[/quote]
Given all the current info, you must have a screw loose to insinuate “It WILL NOT happen”. We’d all be glad to see your proof that it won’t.
Is Iran Next?
By Tom Barry
September 28, 2004
In August it was revealed that one of Feith’s Middle East policy wonks, Lawrence Franklin, shared classified documents including a draft National Security Presidential Directive formulated in Feith’s office that outlines a more aggressive U.S. national security strategy regarding Iran with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Israeli officials. The FBI is investigating the document transfer as a case of espionage.
This spy scandal raises two concerns for U.S. diplomats and foreign policy experts from across the political spectrum. One, that U.S. Middle East policy is being directed by neoconservative ideologues variously employed, coordinated or sanctioned by Feith’s Pentagon office. And two, that U.S. Middle East policy is too closely aligned with that of Israeli hardliners close to U.S. neoconservatives.
Feith is joined in reshaping a U.S. foreign Middle East policy one that mirrors or complements the policies of the hardliners in Israel by a web of neoconservative policy institutes, pressure groups and think tanks. These include the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), Center for Security Policy (CSP) and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) all groups with which Feith has been or still is closely associated.
First Iraq, now Iran
In the months after 9/11, rather than relying on the CIA, State Department or the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency for intelligence about Iraq’s ties to international terrorists and its development of weapons of mass destruction, neoconservatives in the Pentagon set up a special intelligence shop called the Office of Special Plans (OSP). The founders, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Feith, are fervent advocates of a regional restructuring in the Middle East that includes regime change in Iran, Syria and, ultimately, Saudi Arabia.
Not having its own intelligence-gathering infrastructure, Feith’s office relied on fabricated information supplied by Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi expatriate who led the Iraqi National Congress (INC). In 1998, Chalabi’s group was funded by the Iraq Liberation Act, a congressional initiative that was backed by neoconservative institutions such as AIPAC, CSP, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
At the same time that Chalabi and other INC militants were visiting Feith’s office, so were Israeli officials, including generals, according to Lt. Col Karen Kwiakowski, who formerly worked in the Near East and South Asia office under Feith’s supervision. Like the neoconservatives in the United States, Israeli hardliners believe that Israel’s long-term security can best be ensured by a radical makeover of Middle East politics enforced by the superior military power of the United States and Israel.
It now appears that Feith’s Office of Policy, which was creating dubious intelligence rationales for the Iraq war, was also establishing a covert national security strategy for regime change in Iran - most likely through a combination of preemptive military strikes (either by the United States or Israel) and support for a coalition of Iranian dissidents.
Effectively, Washington has already declared war on Iran. Being named by President Bush as part of the “Axis of Evil” triad targeted in the global war on terrorism and the new U.S. strategy of preemptive war has made Iran increasingly nervous.
Iran - itself a victim of a 1953 British and U.S.-engineered regime change that installed the Shah - has seen the United States implement regime change in Iraq to its west and Afghanistan to its east. Moreover, the U.S. government has for the first time solidly allied itself with the military hardliners in Israel - the region’s only nation with nuclear warheads and one of the few nations that has refused to sign the nonproliferation treaty.
justthefacts,
Somehow, I missed this earlier rant:
“The fact of the matter is, it was NEVER about WMD’s or liberation since Iraq happened to be #1 on the Neo-Con hit list for almost 10 years. Their intentions for Iraq and the Middle East have certainly been no secret. No one ever thought one day their insane ideas would someday become policy but here we are.”
I sense a conspiracy theorist.
Let me guess: “Bush is too dumb to be President. Cheney is really the President. It figures because Cheney was once President of Halliburton. In fact, we REALLY launched the war to enrich Halliburton. Somehow (even though Cheney cannot make a single dime from it) Cheney actually makes money from the invasion.”
Or, “Since Bush STOLE the election, the war is payback to the Conservative Supreme Court Justices in their ongoing diabolical scheme to control the world. Somehow Roe vs Wade will be repealed along the way.”
Or, “Bush is a Christian who wants to force the Middle East into a conversion. Every Mosque will be forced to display the Ten Commandements (just like all of our schools and Federal buildings are now). Then John Ashcroft can come in and steal all of their liberties like he has stolen all of ours.”
Or, “Bush was once in oil. Therefore, it follows that he would want to be as obvious as possible and invade oil rich countries. He invaded Iraq so that he could DIRECTLY make money. Only the most educated DEMOCRATS could decipher his true intentions. Then he could buy up EVERY single Major League Baseball team and appoint Bill Burkitt as Commissioner as a thank you for getting him into the Guard.”
Then the wonderful, “We haven’t found shit.”
I’m not going to do your searches for you. I’m tired of educating the uninspired. Look up the mountains of banned weapons we have found that Saddam didn’t declare to the U.N.
If you don’t do a basic search, then don’t bother responding.
Finally, when we launch exactly zero attacks against Iran by November 2nd, 2004, I’m looking forward to your silence.
I wanted to thank you for your deep thinking. You inspire me.
JeffR
Other than the above, you actually stuck to a topic and almost formed yourself an argument through sarcasm. Congrats.
The little gem above is a non-sequitur though.
If something were to happen I’d imagine it would either require a visible build-up that would take a fair amount of time and probably impact the election or it would have to be done by another country.
Whether or not Bush is able to practice enough brinksmanship to force another conflict is going to be interesting to follow.
I’m not buying into anything, but it is easy to imagine a “conspiracy” here due to the possibility of improperly shared intelligence and the prior activities of those involved. Why else would you share intelligence if not to make coordinated plans?
It’s not a big stretch to imagine people within the administration believed in the articles they wrote in the past that just happen to match current scenarios. It’s also not a big stretch to imagine they would work to take action on those beliefs.
Anyway, though the stakes are deadly serious, it’s going to be interesting to see how things play out. It will also be interesting to read about the realities as they finally come to light in the future.
Will the Axis of Evil be dismantled no matter the consequence via manipulative brinkmanship? Is this theory complete bunk based on what in reality is a simple strategy of deterrence? What makes it interesting is that none of us Peons will really know until it is over.
This question resolves down to this. Is the Bush administration really composed of those for whom the ends justify the means? I’ve pointed at that but don’t know if I’m able to believe it.
If the ends justify the means, then ridding the world of terrorism can be accomplished by using brinksmanship to build an ever bigger conflict so that US military might can be applied to wherever it might be desired.
Anyway, don’t mind me, I’m not making any claims or accusing anyone of anything. No need to get the political shorts in a bunch. Just analyzing what various things could mean in various situations.
Maybe I can work in a think tank? That would be even better than being a wag for some publication!