We'll Nuke Iran - Bush Promises Israel

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

US President George W. Bush promised Israel’s opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu that the United States will join the Jewish state in a nuclear strike against Iran, Israel Radio reported today.

Former Prime Minister Netanyahu, opposition Likud party’s hardline chairman who opposes the US-backed Annapolis peace process, reiterated to President Bush his stance, that a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran’s nuclear installations was the only way to stop the Islamic nation’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

“I told him my position and Bush agreed,” Netanyahu told Israel Radio.

During their 45-minute meeting at King David hotel in Jerusalem Netanyahu also told Bush that “Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people and will remain under Israeli sovereignty for eternity.”

President Bush issued a stark warning to Iran over Strait of Hormuz incident, saying that “all options are on the table to protect our assets.”

“There will be serious consequences if they attack our ships, pure and simple,” Bush said during the joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem. “And my advice to them is, don’t do it.”

Bush criticized those who interpret the National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program in 2003, as a sign that Iran was no longer a threat.

“Let me remind you what the NIE actually said,” Bush stold reporters. “It said that as far as the intelligence community could tell, at one time the Iranians had a military – covert military program that was suspended in 2003 because of international pressure. My attitude is that a non-transparent country, a country which has yet to disclose what it was up to, can easily restart a program.”

http://presscue.com/node/38692

2

[quote]ssn0 wrote:

that a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran’s nuclear installations was the only way to stop the Islamic nation’s nuclear weapons ambitions.
[/quote]

makes you wonder who the real threat is

3

Where do you find this ridiculous tripe?

4

Thank God this time brave generals threatened to resign if Bush starts another war of aggression.

What is stunning is that half of Americans are OK with bombing Iran, while two-thirds of Israelis are opposed to the idea. While a war in the ME means a few cents more per gallon for the average American, it might be deadly for Israelis.

And of course, we once again see the American media doing their part in demonizing the Iranian leadership and picturing them as irrational kooks.

Iran is not Iraq. Bush knows that touching them is an awful idea. And I don’t mean protests and acts of civil disobedience…

5

And since we’re on the topic of rhetoric and propaganda…

[i]The admission by the US Navy that Iranian speedboats might not have been the source of an apparent threat to attack American ships in the Gulf is a significant move that raises new fears about the chances of unintended clashes in the region.

It has worrying similarities with the incident in 1988 when, in the same Strait of Hormuz, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, having failed to monitor the radio traffic properly.

The crew of the Vincennes became wrongly convinced that the airliner, an Airbus with 290 people on board, all of whom died, was an Iranian fighter jet.

The Iranian government said that the destruction of the plane was done in full knowledge of what it was.

‘Scenario fulfilment’

The US government later suggested that one factor at play on the Vincennes was a condition called “scenario fulfilment” in which military personnel are under such pressure that they expect and then execute a particular scenario, as if in an exercise.

Whether the same expectation was at play in this latest incident is not clear.

What is clear is that there are grave doubts about who uttered the warning picked up by the US ships. A deep voice was heard to say: “I am coming at you. You will explode after a few minutes.”

The video released by the US implied that the warning was part of a series of transmissions to the ships from the Iranian craft.

It turns out that the warning was added onto the video. It was a radio recording made separately. [/i]

Fuckers!

6

I was watching the republican debates last night on fox news, and they touched on this issue. Huckabee said something like “The first thing the warships will see in their gun sights is our ships, then they will see the gates of hell”, the audience erupted in applause and cheers.

Thomspon said “Well, I’ll be sure that they will go see those virgins”, or something likethat. The audience erupted in laughter and applause.

This went on with all the candidates. A lot of tough talk on Iran. What troubles me is this whole idea that the U.S. can sustain a war with Iran, when the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have already cost so much.

What are these people thinking? I mean, even I know that America simply can’t afford another war, and I’m an idiot!

Scary times we live in.

7

[quote]Mishima wrote:
ssn0 wrote:

that a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran’s nuclear installations was the only way to stop the Islamic nation’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

makes you wonder who the real threat is[/quote]

The idiots spreading blatant lies on bodybuilding websites or the idiots that believe them?

8

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
I was watching the republican debates last night on fox news, and they touched on this issue. Huckabee said something like “The first thing the warships will see in their gun sights is our ships, then they will see the gates of hell”, the audience erupted in applause and cheers.

Thomspon said “Well, I’ll be sure that they will go see those virgins”, or something likethat. The audience erupted in laughter and applause.

[/quote]

Thats exactly the kind of arrogant stupidity the rest of the world hates about america.

Republicans and most of the people who vote for them represent this ugly side of america. People who vote for these guys are idiots who hurt their country, thats an objective fact.

9

It’s too bad dinks like ken kaniff, lixy, and skaz are willing to blow off the iran threat.

Maybe we can ask them nicely not to support terrorism, kill our soldiers, and challenge/threaten to blow up our ships.

I know: Let’s have the u.n. solve it!!!

Further, it’s also too bad that people are willing to buy (without question) that iran stopped all nuclear weapon research in 2003.

Translation: If the government agency findings support my conclusions, then I agree 100% If it doesn’t, then I blame Bush for coercing the agency.

Israel apparently knows the true story behind iran’s nuclear ambitions.

It’s unfortunate that ken, lixy, and skaz are willing to put their head in the sand.

JeffR

10

You guys are missing the point: order has to be restored in the ME while we still have the power to enforce it. We can only hope that it sticks.

We are surging toward bankruptcy and a worthless currency. The ME will dissolve and turn into Kenya and Darfur. Does anyone expect someone else to try and keep the peace? China? We need to conquer the oil fields so we don’t have to be at the mercy of ME potentates. This will strengthen the dollar and give us lots of cheap energy. We can then really have a peaceful and democratic ME, under the benevolence of the American people.

11

[quote]lixy wrote:
And since we’re on the topic of rhetoric and propaganda…

[i]The admission by the US Navy that Iranian speedboats might not have been the source of an apparent threat to attack American ships in the Gulf is a significant move that raises new fears about the chances of unintended clashes in the region.

It has worrying similarities with the incident in 1988 when, in the same Strait of Hormuz, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, having failed to monitor the radio traffic properly.

The crew of the Vincennes became wrongly convinced that the airliner, an Airbus with 290 people on board, all of whom died, was an Iranian fighter jet.

The Iranian government said that the destruction of the plane was done in full knowledge of what it was.

‘Scenario fulfilment’

The US government later suggested that one factor at play on the Vincennes was a condition called “scenario fulfilment” in which military personnel are under such pressure that they expect and then execute a particular scenario, as if in an exercise.

Whether the same expectation was at play in this latest incident is not clear.

What is clear is that there are grave doubts about who uttered the warning picked up by the US ships. A deep voice was heard to say: “I am coming at you. You will explode after a few minutes.”

The video released by the US implied that the warning was part of a series of transmissions to the ships from the Iranian craft.

It turns out that the warning was added onto the video. It was a radio recording made separately. [/i]

Fuckers![/quote]

lixy,

Explain how you are reading this. Who are the “fuckers?”

I can guess, but, I want to see how your radical Islamic propaganda handles this incident.

JeffR

12

[quote]lixy wrote:
And since we’re on the topic of rhetoric and propaganda…

[i]The admission by the US Navy that Iranian speedboats might not have been the source of an apparent threat to attack American ships in the Gulf is a significant move that raises new fears about the chances of unintended clashes in the region.

It has worrying similarities with the incident in 1988 when, in the same Strait of Hormuz, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, having failed to monitor the radio traffic properly.

The crew of the Vincennes became wrongly convinced that the airliner, an Airbus with 290 people on board, all of whom died, was an Iranian fighter jet.

The Iranian government said that the destruction of the plane was done in full knowledge of what it was.

‘Scenario fulfilment’

The US government later suggested that one factor at play on the Vincennes was a condition called “scenario fulfilment” in which military personnel are under such pressure that they expect and then execute a particular scenario, as if in an exercise.

Whether the same expectation was at play in this latest incident is not clear.

What is clear is that there are grave doubts about who uttered the warning picked up by the US ships. A deep voice was heard to say: “I am coming at you. You will explode after a few minutes.”

The video released by the US implied that the warning was part of a series of transmissions to the ships from the Iranian craft.

It turns out that the warning was added onto the video. It was a radio recording made separately. [/i]

Fuckers![/quote]

Wow, you mean the video tape of the speedboats didn’t have the radio recording in it? I’m amazed. Was the radio recording not made simultaneously?

Here’s that last sentence, with the immediately following one you cut off for some strange reason:

[i]It turns out that the warning was added onto the video. It was a radio recording made separately.

Experts say it could have come from another ship in the area or from a radio transmitter on shore. The channel used by the Iranian vessels to make their inquiries is an open one. [/i]

So, the U.S. navy gets a radio transmission simultaneously to these Iranian boats coming up, and just maybe that might have been someone else in the area or on shore threatening the U.S. ships?

13

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:
And since we’re on the topic of rhetoric and propaganda…

[i]The admission by the US Navy that Iranian speedboats might not have been the source of an apparent threat to attack American ships in the Gulf is a significant move that raises new fears about the chances of unintended clashes in the region.

It has worrying similarities with the incident in 1988 when, in the same Strait of Hormuz, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, having failed to monitor the radio traffic properly.

The crew of the Vincennes became wrongly convinced that the airliner, an Airbus with 290 people on board, all of whom died, was an Iranian fighter jet.

The Iranian government said that the destruction of the plane was done in full knowledge of what it was.

‘Scenario fulfilment’

The US government later suggested that one factor at play on the Vincennes was a condition called “scenario fulfilment” in which military personnel are under such pressure that they expect and then execute a particular scenario, as if in an exercise.

Whether the same expectation was at play in this latest incident is not clear.

What is clear is that there are grave doubts about who uttered the warning picked up by the US ships. A deep voice was heard to say: “I am coming at you. You will explode after a few minutes.”

The video released by the US implied that the warning was part of a series of transmissions to the ships from the Iranian craft.

It turns out that the warning was added onto the video. It was a radio recording made separately. [/i]

Fuckers!

Wow, you mean the video tape of the speedboats didn’t have the radio recording in it? I’m amazed. Was the radio recording not made simultaneously?

Here’s that last sentence, with the immediately following one you cut off for some strange reason:

[i]It turns out that the warning was added onto the video. It was a radio recording made separately.

Experts say it could have come from another ship in the area or from a radio transmitter on shore. The channel used by the Iranian vessels to make their inquiries is an open one. [/i]

So, the U.S. navy gets a radio transmission simultaneously to these Iranian boats coming up, and just maybe that might have been someone else in the area or on shore threatening the U.S. ships? [/quote]

BB,

Stop!!! This is another opportunity for us to watch him try to rationalize iranian aggression.

I want him to swallow the bait. If you tip him off to how stupid his argument is, he won’t bite.

JeffR

14

[quote]JeffR wrote:
It’s too bad dinks like ken kaniff, lixy, and skaz are willing to blow off the iran threat.

Maybe we can ask them nicely not to support terrorism, kill our soldiers, and challenge/threaten to blow up our ships.

I know: Let’s have the u.n. solve it!!!

Further, it’s also too bad that people are willing to buy (without question) that iran stopped all nuclear weapon research in 2003.

Translation: If the government agency findings support my conclusions, then I agree 100% If it doesn’t, then I blame Bush for coercing the agency.

Israel apparently knows the true story behind iran’s nuclear ambitions.

It’s unfortunate that ken, lixy, and skaz are willing to put their head in the sand.

JeffR[/quote]

I’m not blowing off any threat. I just wanted to point out the “tough guy” attitude of most of these republican candidates. I don’t like it. I don’t like phony tough guys. Like when Huckabee said that line of “they will see the gates of hell… blah blah blah” The fuck does that mean? Why talk like that? Most guys I know who have had to talk tough like that get their asses handed to them by REAL tough guys.

Personally, I don’t know enough about Iran’s nuclear program to debate on it. I did write a report for class about a nuclear armed Iran, and I read 2 books on it. Atomic Iran by Jerome Corsi, and Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran by Kenneth Timmerman.

Even still, I don’t think that a war with Iran would be such a great idea, especially right now when we really can’t afford it AND given their growing relations with China and Russia.

15

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
It’s too bad dinks like ken kaniff, lixy, and skaz are willing to blow off the iran threat.

Maybe we can ask them nicely not to support terrorism, kill our soldiers, and challenge/threaten to blow up our ships.

I know: Let’s have the u.n. solve it!!!

Further, it’s also too bad that people are willing to buy (without question) that iran stopped all nuclear weapon research in 2003.

Translation: If the government agency findings support my conclusions, then I agree 100% If it doesn’t, then I blame Bush for coercing the agency.

Israel apparently knows the true story behind iran’s nuclear ambitions.

It’s unfortunate that ken, lixy, and skaz are willing to put their head in the sand.

JeffR

I’m not blowing off any threat. I just wanted to point out the “tough guy” attitude of most of these republican candidates. I don’t like it. I don’t like phony tough guys. Like when Huckabee said that line of “they will see the gates of hell… blah blah blah” The fuck does that mean? Why talk like that? Most guys I know who have had to talk tough like that get their asses handed to them by REAL tough guys.

Personally, I don’t know enough about Iran’s nuclear program to debate on it. I did write a report for class about a nuclear armed Iran, and I read 2 books on it. Atomic Iran by Jerome Corsi, and Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran by Kenneth Timmerman.

Even still, I don’t think that a war with Iran would be such a great idea, especially right now when we really can’t afford it AND given their growing relations with China and Russia.[/quote]

skaz,

I don’t particularly like the religious undertones of the commentary.

I can’t stand the “soldier of God” huckabee. If you dinks want to start a REAL RELIGIOUS WAR, elect that sh…stain.

Fred should have known better than to mock religious beliefs.

However, there needs to be enough doubt in the iranian’s mind that they will be DETERRED.

The best response is the traditional one: No options are off the table.

You don’t do what you are doing and blab about “affording” the war. If you show weakness, dictators seize upon it.

Think about Taiwan. China isn’t sure how we would respond.

Now you throw up a weiner like barack obama, and iran would feel emboldened.

Whether we can “AFFORD” it or not, if you don’t want to have to fight, you’d better be able to DETER. You’d better have a credible threat of force behind your words.

I’m more of a T.R., speak softly and carry a big stick guy.

I appreciate you stating that you don’t know alot about iran’s nuclear program. I wanted to add, however, that it would seem logical from their standpoint to acquire the weapon.

What greater diplomatic tool could the a thing ask for?

JeffR

16

[quote]JeffR wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:
And since we’re on the topic of rhetoric and propaganda…

[i]The admission by the US Navy that Iranian speedboats might not have been the source of an apparent threat to attack American ships in the Gulf is a significant move that raises new fears about the chances of unintended clashes in the region.

It has worrying similarities with the incident in 1988 when, in the same Strait of Hormuz, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, having failed to monitor the radio traffic properly.

The crew of the Vincennes became wrongly convinced that the airliner, an Airbus with 290 people on board, all of whom died, was an Iranian fighter jet.

The Iranian government said that the destruction of the plane was done in full knowledge of what it was.

‘Scenario fulfilment’

The US government later suggested that one factor at play on the Vincennes was a condition called “scenario fulfilment” in which military personnel are under such pressure that they expect and then execute a particular scenario, as if in an exercise.

Whether the same expectation was at play in this latest incident is not clear.

What is clear is that there are grave doubts about who uttered the warning picked up by the US ships. A deep voice was heard to say: “I am coming at you. You will explode after a few minutes.”

The video released by the US implied that the warning was part of a series of transmissions to the ships from the Iranian craft.

It turns out that the warning was added onto the video. It was a radio recording made separately. [/i]

Fuckers!

Wow, you mean the video tape of the speedboats didn’t have the radio recording in it? I’m amazed. Was the radio recording not made simultaneously?

Here’s that last sentence, with the immediately following one you cut off for some strange reason:

[i]It turns out that the warning was added onto the video. It was a radio recording made separately.

Experts say it could have come from another ship in the area or from a radio transmitter on shore. The channel used by the Iranian vessels to make their inquiries is an open one. [/i]

So, the U.S. navy gets a radio transmission simultaneously to these Iranian boats coming up, and just maybe that might have been someone else in the area or on shore threatening the U.S. ships?

BB,

Stop!!! This is another opportunity for us to watch him try to rationalize iranian aggression.

I want him to swallow the bait. If you tip him off to how stupid his argument is, he won’t bite.

JeffR

[/quote]

BB,

See. You did it. Your post stopped him from regurgitating his tripe.

Under normal circumstances, he’d be trying to convince us that the Americans were the aggressors by being “near” iran.

He caught himself just as he was about to fall into my trap.

Oh, well, I’ll get him next time.

It isn’t too difficult.

JeffR

17

[quote]JeffR wrote:

BB,

See. You did it. Your post stopped him from regurgitating his tripe.

Under normal circumstances, he’d be trying to convince us that the Americans were the aggressors by being “near” iran.

He caught himself just as he was about to fall into my trap.

Oh, well, I’ll get him next time.

It isn’t too difficult.

JeffR

[/quote]

Maybe he’s been surfing the net:

http://www.slate.com/id/2181851/nav/tap3/

http://kevinsullivan.poligazette.com/?p=205

18

Thing that worries me about the naval “provocation” with Iranian speed boats(and what a joke that was, 4 speed boats and 3 US WARSHIPS… with at LEAST 200 yards distance) is the fact that the US government fabricates these types of events. Gulf of Tonkin anyone? Which has now finally been “confirmed” by the “credible” media as being a complete lie, even though people have been saying it for years.

19

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Thing that worries me about the naval “provocation” with Iranian speed boats(and what a joke that was, 4 speed boats and 3 US WARSHIPS… with at LEAST 200 yards distance) is the fact that the US government fabricates these types of events. Gulf of Tonkin anyone? Which has now finally been “confirmed” by the “credible” media as being a complete lie, even though people have been saying it for years.[/quote]

U.S.S. Cole, anyone? USS Cole bombing - Wikipedia

What is it about lefties and Viet Nam analogies anyway? That Gulf of Tonkin theme seems to be floating around, even though it’s a crappy analogy.

The first attack in the Gulf of Tonkin happened. Gulf of Tonkin incident - Wikipedia ; and I don’t think anyone is alleging that there weren’t any Iranian speedboats, so not a good analogy to the second Gulf of Tonkin incident either.

Also, see this again: http://kevinsullivan.poligazette.com/?p=205

20

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You guys are missing the point: order has to be restored in the ME while we still have the power to enforce it. We can only hope that it sticks.

We are surging toward bankruptcy and a worthless currency. The ME will dissolve and turn into Kenya and Darfur. Does anyone expect someone else to try and keep the peace? China? We need to conquer the oil fields so we don’t have to be at the mercy of ME potentates. This will strengthen the dollar and give us lots of cheap energy. We can then really have a peaceful and democratic ME, under the benevolence of the American people.[/quote]

HH, what did you type into Google to source that pic?

Just curious.

Was it “nigger machete”, by any chance?