Mothers Of Invasion, Part II: "Iran Is Coming! Iran Is

I think that we were talking about directly invading or attacking America. What you have described is what would happen if Saddam gave those weapons to terrorists. See the difference?

I think its been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Iran has
weapons of mass destruction. Its right there in King George II’s
book of revelations. Let’s just disengage from the collateral
damage and have peace with honor. Anyway, its simpler to
move the troops over to Iran now that they’re already in the area.

The big news in our lives by mid-year is going to be the Takedown In Tehran. At this very moment:

:noway: The Bush Administration is pushing hard for ‘elections’ in Iraq so it has an official reason to wash its hands of the whole mess and fly off to war with Iran, leaving its fourteen ‘secret’ bases behind to watch over the Baghdad-o-Rama that’s about to break out.

:noway: Simultaneously it’s laying deepest, darkest plans to carpet bomb Iran with Bunker Busters because ‘the voices’ are telling them that’s next on the heavenly hit list.

:noway: They’re also trying to oust Mohammed El Baradei as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency because he’s going to be a ‘real problem’ when they start banging the tin pots of war against Iran and its nuclear energy program this spring/summer.

:noway: Get your civil defense helmets on and your gas masks ready patriots because we’re going in again.
Hoo-yah!

You spoke of “threaten directly” so it seems like you and Bill Clinton went to the same English language school. Or I understand you to say then that if Saddam supplied weapons of mass destruction to terrorists that this would not “threaten the US directly” and if Iraq’s radio controlled airplanes actually became viable UAV’s and could carry out missions to target the US that this would not “threaten the US directly”? I see the difference William.

Typical Fred smith reaction, procrastinate all you want freddie, but the US little by little is isolating itself. I among others warned about this two years ago, but people like you just said it was nonsense. Stange then that today a polls results got launched, that show of the countries polled, most view the US actions in Iraq as making the world less safe, and that anti Bush feelings and being turned into anti US feelings, even in the UK that was the result, only poland gave the US a thumbs up.

Eventually, an isolated country does extreme things, look at Iraq as an example. :astonished:

There is a better way than invading to get Iran. Here’s what I would do.

Offer each Iranian female the following.

1.) Immediate citizenship in a Western country.

2.) Free education for as long as you want. And you get to study whatever you want. Let them know that they can study with guys too.

3.) $10,000 debit card at Macy’s. Let them wear whatever they want, whenever they want. Let them know that we like people to express themselves through fashion…that fire engine red leather miniskirts rock.

4.) Same basic human rights as the guys. You can go shopping by yourself, watch porn, drink beer, or read any book.

Watch them line up in droves to leave.

With no more female companionship for the general male population, the whole rotten system collaspes. Then we put the emancipated Iranian ladies in charge of Iran.

We could call it the “Avon Revolution”.

Message for Comrade Stalin and Traveller: please refrain from using the threads for your personal discussions - your posts are off-topic and in breach of the rules. You can use PMs instead or, better even, don’t respond to the provocations.

Thanks,
Rascal
Moderator IP Forum

[color=blue]The real reason the U.S. will attack Iran and its non-existent weapons of mass destruction, just as it did in Iraq:[/color]

"Israel presses U.S. to stop Iran

[quote=“Traveller”]
Then dont be to surprised Fred when those ‘bastards’ in Europe lose patience with the Us and start boycotting it. At the rate he is currently going then patience will have run out before Dubya leaves office, and the real legacy of his tenure will be left for all to see.[/quote]

lol. europe is a much more export-driven economy than the us. europe also exports much more to the us than it imports. any european boycott of the us would be economic suicide.

as for legacies, what will the legacy of chirac/schroeder/putin/annan be, i wonder…

Back to Israel again are we Spook? So only Israel is worried about Iran and its nuclear program? Might want to talk to the following about this as well:

Pakistan
Iraq
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Gulf Cooperation Council

Then

Europe
America

Oh yes, and Israel would be worried about this too. BUT what if the US is more worried about Israel taking action to get rid of these nuclear sites? Would that factor into our equation to be concerned about an Israeli attack? Do you believe that Iran is NOT a problem? What would you suggest we do? Allow Iran to have nuclear weapons? Or don’t you believe that they are trying to develop them?

Honestly, am I the only one who sees Spook’s constant obsession with Israel as a kind of anti-Semitism, but oh that’s right, I am just trying to shut down the debate by playing the race card right?

Do you dispute any of the facts in the article – or just the fact that I’m pointing them out?

The scuttlebutt is that the U.S. & Israel are making plans for a June assault on Iran’s nuclear energy facilities.

The evidence on Iran that I’m aware of is that they’re developing nuclear technology for energy production only and that the U.S. and Israel know this but won’t allow it to happen because the same technology can be turned to weapons production fairly quickly.

The U.S. and Israeli policy then is essentially that no Muslim country in the Middle East will be allowed to develop nuclear energy technology even for peaceful purposes because the technology will give them the capability to build weapons – whether they actually do or not.

[quote=“spook”]
The scuttlebutt is that the U.S. & Israel are making plans for a June assault on Iran’s nuclear energy facilities.[/quote]

Well…“scuttlebutt”! You mean a couple of reporters sitting around a bar getting drunk. I’ll go down the street as ask Lee Taitai (she sells jioudz in the night market) what she thinks about a US/Israeli “assault” on Iran. Her take will be about as authoritative.

"On Iran, (Scott) Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran

Gosh Spook:

Wouldn’t that be awful. Regime change in Iran where the mullahs have driven the economy into the tank, where there are no personal freedoms, where we would be preventing Iran which is the No. 1 supporter of terrorism in the world from getting nuclear weapons. Gee. What a secret! Can anyone believe that the neocons want to see regime change in Iran! Gosh. News to me. Who would have thunk? Gosh. It’s amazing how well read you are and how you keep up on these things. Be sure and get the word out so that Bush and these evil neocons cannot fool us with their manifestos about how they want to see regime change in Iran and Syria. Much better coming from you that the neocons and Bush want to see regime change in Iran and Syria. How did you ever find out?

You didn’t answer the question.

Scott Ritter??? The paedophile??? The UN arms inspector??? :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: Please more! You’re killllllling me!!!:lol: :laughing: :laughing:

nydailynews.com/news/crime_f … 1227c.html
news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/2691013.stm

Spook wrote:

[quote]"Israel presses U.S. to stop Iran

Spook wrote:

I do not dispute any of the facts, just your assumptions regarding them.

Good. Do you deny that Iran is developing nuclear weapons? Do you want Iran to have them? Would that be okay with you?

Yes, they could turn to weapons production fairly quickly. Do you trust Iran’s government?

Works for me. Who in the Middle East would you like to see with nuclear weapons and why do they need them? No one in Latin America has them nor in Africa, why does anyone in the Middle East need them? Also you are forgetting are you not that Pakistan has them and we have allowed them to because we did not have a choice. Do you think the world is better off because Pakistan has nuclear weapons? Do you think it would have been better if we had prevented this? Which do you think is worse? Pakistan having nuclear weapons or India? I mean does anyone really care that India has them? Why then do you think people are so nervous about Pakistan having them? Do you think this same insecurity and fear would also explain why everyone is nervous about other countries in the Middle East having such weapons?

So I take your answer to mean that you accept or nearly accept all of the facts in the article but object to the fact that I point them out.

Isn’t that just political correctness run amok? How can the truth be anti-Semitic, racist, or anti-women as advocates of political correctness so often maintain?

Isn’t the fact that something is true or at least argumentatively true justification enough for saying it publicly?

spook wrote:

[quote]So I take your answer to mean that you accept or nearly accept all of the facts in the article but object to the fact that I point them out.

Isn’t that just political correctness run amok? How can the truth be anti-Semitic, racist, or anti-women as advocates of political correctness so often maintain?

Isn’t the fact that something is true or at least argumentatively true justification enough for saying it publicly?[/quote]

Not at all. I accept the facts as they are presented, but I disagree with the assertion that you seem to be implying that we would be acting ONLY because of the Israelis. You seem to be suggesting that our main reason for invading Iraq was because of Israel. You also seem to be suggesting that our MAIN reason for taking action against Iran would be Israel. I strongly disagree and I think that your excessive concerns regarding Israel’s influence on American foreign policy (which I do not see) is an indication of your anti-Semitism.

So I agree with the facts. I disagree with your assertions and implied conclusions and yes, I still think that you are anti-Semitic and that you have a problem with the Jews and how much they “control” the world.