Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran

[Mad Scientist]

A little reminder to our Liberal friends:
US to Israel: We'll Attack Iran if Certain Nuclear Lines Are Crossed

White House officials are letting Israel know that there are certain red lines that, if crossed, would trigger an attack on Iran, so there’s no need for Israel to move unilaterally.

But before Obama can do that he needs to do something that makes it look like he first "tried peacefully" to solve the problem. Hmm, what should that be? Oh how bout this?:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...bill-imposing-iran-banking-sanctions-1.404788

U.S. President Barack Obama signed a sweeping defense funding bill on Saturday that includes new sanctions on financial institutions dealing with Iran's central bank.

How can you get someone to fight with you? Choke him first then when he defends himself by fighting back, you can say he "took a swing at me so I had to stomp him!".

Pretty fuckin' brilliant eh?

Hey, do you guys know how the war with Japan was started? Hint: It wasn't Pearl Harbor. Also, do a little research into the US neutrality between England and Germany but us secretly helping England.

You may learn something. The light bulb might go on.

 

[Mad Scientist]

If they try and block the Strait of Hormuz that will be perceived as an act of war. They try and enforce it, whatever craft tries it out will be sunk or shot down. Does not matter who is president, even Ron Paul would see this as a fundamental threat to the US economy.

America is natural resources rich. We have enough oil, we don't need it from the big sand box. We don't need to be there no matter what the Military Industrial Complex tells you.
We can also sign an energy deal with Mexico who is even more energy rich than us but they can't seem to get it out of the ground. Maybe we could help?
But no, it's much more fun to send our Military overseas to fuck with people isn't it? I mean, why have a military if you're not going to use it right?

 

[Cammmpbell]

A little reminder to our Liberal friends:
US to Israel: We'll Attack Iran if Certain Nuclear Lines Are Crossed

White House officials are letting Israel know that there are certain red lines that, if crossed, would trigger an attack on Iran, so there’s no need for Israel to move unilaterally.

But before Obama can do that he needs to do something that makes it look like he first "tried peacefully" to solve the problem. Hmm, what should that be? Oh how bout this?:
Obama signs into law bill imposing Iran banking sanctions - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

U.S. President Barack Obama signed a sweeping defense funding bill on Saturday that includes new sanctions on financial institutions dealing with Iran's central bank.

How can you get someone to fight with you? Choke him first then when he defends himself by fighting back, you can say he "took a swing at me so I had to stomp him!".

Pretty fuckin' brilliant eh?

Hey, do you guys know how the war with Japan was started? Hint: It wasn't Pearl Harbor. Also, do a little research into the US neutrality between England and Germany but us secretly helping England.

You may learn something. The light bulb might go on.

All the empires in the history of the world played games to ensure their success. Guess what............they all failed.

As far as the 2nd world war....the only mistake which was made was not letting General Patton go and do some major asskicking in the Soviet Union. He was ready and willing.

 

[Euro]

Ya' gots ta love it. Evidently not a one of those clowns noticed how the Bomb Bomb schit worked out for George Bush. I've heard at least three of them say Israel or the United States should consider bombing Iran if they don't allow IAEA to stay in the country. We think that we have a lot of business 10,000 miles away screwing around in somebody else's business. If Israel wants to take their asses out so be it.....we have no business there.

Israel is the driving force, they think US are cowards that don’t want to join them and go to war with Iran.
Iran is not really a threat to US if the US take a non-intervention role. Obama will probobaly not go to war in an election year. If Romney gets elected the war will start in November2012.

Iran has allies on all corners, Iraq,Pakistan,Afghanistan,Syria will close the supply lines and sabotage with bombs. Russia in north will also supply Iran with weapons. So Iran are supported on three fronts east west and north.

The war will then take place in the south of Iran, where Iran can place mines in the sea. They also have missiles, submarines and warships their. So Israel will need support from US to deal with Iran. But Iran are much stronger than Iraq and Afghanistan and they have allies on all corners.

So Iran are ready for war, Israel are ready for war just waiting for US support and a green light to attack. So it’s up to Obama if he will join Israel or not.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Ya' gots ta love it. Evidently not a one of those clowns noticed how the Bomb Bomb schit worked out for George Bush. I've heard at least three of them say Israel or the United States should consider bombing Iran if they don't allow IAEA to stay in the country. We think that we have a lot of business 10,000 miles away screwing around in somebody else's business. If Israel wants to take their asses out so be it.....we have no business there.

Israel is the driving force, they think US are cowards that don’t want to join them and go to war with Iran.
Iran is not really a threat to US if the US take a non-intervention role. Obama will probobaly not go to war in an election year. If Romney gets elected the war will start in November2012.

Iran has allies on all corners, Iraq,Pakistan,Afghanistan,Syria will close the supply lines and sabotage with bombs. Russia in north will also supply Iran with weapons. So Iran are supported on three fronts east west and north.

The war will then take place in the south of Iran, where Iran can place mines in the sea. They also have missiles, submarines and warships their. So Israel will need support from US to deal with Iran. But Iran are much stronger than Iraq and Afghanistan and they have allies on all corners.

So Iran are ready for war, Israel are ready for war just waiting for US support and a green light to attack. So it’s up to Obama if he will join Israel or not.

If all that schit happens Obama will nuke their arses. Do you remember Harry Truman.....he's the only human in the world who ever authori ed a nuclear attack.

 

[whitehall]

I guess there is a mindset on the left that causes them to think that the world started the day George W. Bush took the oath. I never heard a word of criticism on the left when the pervert-in-chief bombed Yugoslavia to deflect criticism for the DNA on Monica's dress.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TObANrkrngo]Streets of Iran: Iranian Beauty - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_JUwQWZasU]Iranian Children - YouTube[/ame]

 

[konradv]

Did you see how everyone excoriated McCain when he said "Bomb Iran"? "OMG what a warmonger he is" you all said.

Now Obama looks like he's going to actually do it but what is the Left saying about it? Nothing.

When did he advocate bombing Iran? What he's ACTUALLY going to do is use diplomatic efforts to make sure war doesn't happen. It isn't Bushian sabre-rattling OR Paulian retreat!

 

[whitehall]

Using NATO means never having to say you are sorry. Clinton didn't go to Congress for permission to bomb Yugoslavia. He went to his socialist friend in Spain for cover to use US bombers in a wag the dog scenario. Barry Hussein didn't go to congress for permission to help the muslem brotherhood. He went to NATO for cover to bomb civilians in Libya. America won't attack Iran, NATO will and Barry will have plausable deniability.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Using NATO means never having to say you are sorry. Clinton didn't go to Congress for permission to bomb Yugoslavia. He went to his socialist friend in Spain for cover to use US bombers in a wag the dog scenario. Barry Hussein didn't go to congress for permission to help the muslem brotherhood. He went to NATO for cover to bomb civilians in Libya. America won't attack Iran, NATO will and Barry will have plausable deniability.

I never voted for or against Bill Clinton but I can't help laughing out loud when the right jumps all over him. The two Clinton terms were the best political terms for America I have ever seen....'course I'm only 77.

See...a cowboy like Bush would have bombed somebody when the WTC was hit the first time. Instead of that we tried them in our courts the same way we would had they been another Tim McVeigh.

Here's a letter written to Bill Clinton by some of the Cowboys in the mid 1990's:

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

 

[Warrior102]

Using NATO means never having to say you are sorry. Clinton didn't go to Congress for permission to bomb Yugoslavia. He went to his socialist friend in Spain for cover to use US bombers in a wag the dog scenario. Barry Hussein didn't go to congress for permission to help the muslem brotherhood. He went to NATO for cover to bomb civilians in Libya. America won't attack Iran, NATO will and Barry will have plausable deniability.

I never voted for or against Bill Clinton but I can't help laughing out loud when the right jumps all over him. The two Clinton terms were the best political terms for America I have ever seen....'course I'm only 77.

See...a cowboy like Bush would have bombed somebody when the WTC was hit the first time. Instead of that we tried them in our courts the same way we would had they been another Tim McVeigh.

A Cowboy like Bush??
That's a fucking laugh.
Chickenhawk Cowboy Obama has our troops committed to NINE gloabal conflicts worldwide right now, while he golfs.
Need a list, asswipe?

 

[Unkotare]

Ya' gots ta love it. Evidently not a one of those clowns noticed how the Bomb Bomb schit worked out for George Bush. .

How it worked out is that we completely crushed the national militaries and deposed the tryanical regimes we set out to in a very short amount of time.

 

[Old Rocks]

If they try and block the Strait of Hormuz that will be perceived as an act of war. They try and enforce it, whatever craft tries it out will be sunk or shot down. Does not matter who is president, even Ron Paul would see this as a fundamental threat to the US economy.

America is natural resources rich. We have enough oil, we don't need it from the big sand box. We don't need to be there no matter what the Military Industrial Complex tells you.
We can also sign an energy deal with Mexico who is even more energy rich than us but they can't seem to get it out of the ground. Maybe we could help?
But no, it's much more fun to send our Military overseas to fuck with people isn't it? I mean, why have a military if you're not going to use it right?

What kind of crap have you been reading? Certainly not real assessments from the USGS.

 

[Old Rocks]

Using NATO means never having to say you are sorry. Clinton didn't go to Congress for permission to bomb Yugoslavia. He went to his socialist friend in Spain for cover to use US bombers in a wag the dog scenario. Barry Hussein didn't go to congress for permission to help the muslem brotherhood. He went to NATO for cover to bomb civilians in Libya. America won't attack Iran, NATO will and Barry will have plausable deniability.

I never voted for or against Bill Clinton but I can't help laughing out loud when the right jumps all over him. The two Clinton terms were the best political terms for America I have ever seen....'course I'm only 77.

See...a cowboy like Bush would have bombed somebody when the WTC was hit the first time. Instead of that we tried them in our courts the same way we would had they been another Tim McVeigh.

Here's a letter written to Bill Clinton by some of the Cowboys in the mid 1990's:

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Yep, the New Amercan Century assholes.

Well, they got their chance to do what they desired, and sure has worked out good for, hasn't it.

The whack job 'Conservatives' on this board all should be proud of the insane mess these people have made of Iraq. And the economic consequences their policies created here in the states.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ya' gots ta love it. Evidently not a one of those clowns noticed how the Bomb Bomb schit worked out for George Bush. .

How it worked out is that we completely crushed the national militaries and deposed the tryanical regimes we set out to in a very short amount of time.

Damn, next time you go to the front line.

 

[Old Rocks]

Using NATO means never having to say you are sorry. Clinton didn't go to Congress for permission to bomb Yugoslavia. He went to his socialist friend in Spain for cover to use US bombers in a wag the dog scenario. Barry Hussein didn't go to congress for permission to help the muslem brotherhood. He went to NATO for cover to bomb civilians in Libya. America won't attack Iran, NATO will and Barry will have plausable deniability.

You dumb fuck, you are comparing very successful strategies to the completely unsuccessful Iraq occupation.

Bush failed to avenge the murder of 3000 Americans on American soil. Instead, went after a nation that had nothing to do with 9-11, had no WMD, in which the Al Queda was not welcome, and represented no danger to the US.

Lie all you want to defend the insane policies of the Bush Admin, the rest of the Citizens of this nation know the truth. Three trillion dollars and over 4000 of our sons and daughters lives for an illegal war based on lies.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Using NATO means never having to say you are sorry. Clinton didn't go to Congress for permission to bomb Yugoslavia. He went to his socialist friend in Spain for cover to use US bombers in a wag the dog scenario. Barry Hussein didn't go to congress for permission to help the muslem brotherhood. He went to NATO for cover to bomb civilians in Libya. America won't attack Iran, NATO will and Barry will have plausable deniability.

I never voted for or against Bill Clinton but I can't help laughing out loud when the right jumps all over him. The two Clinton terms were the best political terms for America I have ever seen....'course I'm only 77.

See...a cowboy like Bush would have bombed somebody when the WTC was hit the first time. Instead of that we tried them in our courts the same way we would had they been another Tim McVeigh.

Here's a letter written to Bill Clinton by some of the Cowboys in the mid 1990's:

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Yep, the New Amercan Century assholes.

Well, they got their chance to do what they desired, and sure has worked out good for, hasn't it.

The whack job 'Conservatives' on this board all should be proud of the insane mess these people have made of Iraq. And the economic consequences their policies created here in the states.

I didn't even mention that within thirty minutes after the hijacker's plane struck the pentagon Rumsfeld asked his staff to prepare a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Think maybe there was a little pre conceived notion there

 

[Warrior102]

I didn't even mention that within thirty minutes after the hijacker's plane struck the pentagon Rumsfeld asked his staff to prepare a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Think maybe there was a little pre conceived notion there

Shut up draft-dodging asswipe

 

[Unkotare]

Ya' gots ta love it. Evidently not a one of those clowns noticed how the Bomb Bomb schit worked out for George Bush. .

How it worked out is that we completely crushed the national militaries and deposed the tryanical regimes we set out to in a very short amount of time.

Damn, next time you go to the front line.

Why? Our professional, volunteer armed forces did more than fine without me.