Iran In Sights?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Feb 5, 2007.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    time will tell with this, but I do think something is coming:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/turning_toward_iran.html

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Barone always delivers something worth reading, and this is definitely worth reading.

    It could be that the current drop in gas prices can be laid at the feet of this new policy re Iran. I've heard two theories about this. The first is that Saudia Arabia is putting more crude oil on the market--not their usual practice--to wreck Iran's economy, which is faltering. Ummmmm. Wasn't Condi Rice in SA for talks recently?

    The second is that Saudia Arabia is concerned that America's politicians might actually follow through on their talk about finding alternative sources of energy and are trying to protect themselves and their financial base. The first theory makes more sense to me, although both theories probably enter into the picture.

    What do your myriad sources say about this topic?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I've been reading the same as you. I do know that there are two carriers now in the Gulf, which together with the Admiral does give pause.
     
  4. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    A mere two hours before President Bush's speech on January 10th, US forces sacked an Iranian diplomatic mission in Kurdistan. Shortly thereafter, President Bush stated that he has issued capture or kill orders for Iranians in Iraq. Two carrier battle-groups are on station in the region with a third having departed for the Persian Gulf just a week ago. The Bush administration's rhetoric matches, nearly word for word that which he used in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. The evidence in support of Iranian involvement in Iraq is as tenuous as that which was used by the Administration used to substantiate its claims of WMD's in Iraq.

    It should be crystal clear by now, that President Bush and his administration is intent on goading Iran into some action which, however tenuous, would provide the <i>causus belli</i> it has long sought with regards to Iran. This would provide the Bush administration, at least to their minds, with all the reason they need to conduct military operations against Iran, most likely starting with air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities. This goal has long been denied the Administration by the international community.

    It seems clear however, that Chimpy and Co have chosen to ignore the consequences of such a course of action. It is also clear that the only way to derail this juggernaut is articles of impeachment against Chimpy and Co. Better a constitutional crisis at home than another world war. And this time around it would be the world against America. While not every hand would be raised against us few, if any, would be raised in our support.
     
  5. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    Yes, of course, President Bush is the one causing Iran to send troops into Iraq to fight our guys. Its a huge conspiracy. He somehow controls the Iranian regime and is sending their troops into iraq to kill our troops. That way when our troops fight back and kill these Iranian troops in Iraq, we goad Iran into a war.

    I think it's quite the opposite. Iran is trying to goad us into a war. that is why they are sending troops into Iraq.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    And just where'd ya find that little morsel? Did it pop outta Rush Limbaugh's arse?
     
  7. sitarro
    Offline

    sitarro Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,186
    Thanks Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +1,001
    I know it's difficult for you Bullyboy, you don't recognize what Avatar is so unfairly using against you, let me help you. It is called logic, most guys can recognize it because it is one of the few things that men are pretty good at, you obviously aren't.

    Oh by the way, when Rush Limbaugh takes a crap he flushes more than twice the intelligence that you possess. It's really kind of sad, was it agent orange that did this to you?
     
  8. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    You're really going to have to do better than that. The level of intel Chimpy and Co has presented to support their assertions that Iran is feeding troops, money and materiel into Iraq is no better than what they presented to support their contention Iraq possessed WMD's. And we all know how that turned out.

    As for logic, the logic Avatar is using is as flawed as the assumption he is basing it upon. That assumption being that Chimpy and Co actually have a plan with regards to the "war on terrorism" in general, and Iraq in particular. Chimpy's current strategy is simply more of the same. The "surge" concept has been applied before...five times...especially when the White House is facing political difficulties at home regarding Iraq. Each time the result has been the same...no real, discernible progress in quelling the sectarian violence. And doing the same thing over and over again with the expectation of a different result is a definition of insanity.

    Given this background and the history Chimpy and Co has of "fitting the intelligence to the policy", even if they have to fabricate it, your continued belief and faith in the ability of this Administration to act effectively on the world stage is, at best, naive. That you continue to support their efforts to foment war with Iran is understandable in that light. You simply don't know better.

    As for the drug-addled gas-bag, Rush Limbaugh, you may be right. He has flushed so much intelligence down the toilet over the years that he has none left. He is, however, still full of shit.
     
  9. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,853
    Thanks Received:
    2,066
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,741
    And yet you choose to ignore the consequences of allowing Iran to build nukes. This is another situation where we are "damned if we do, damned if we don't." Yet instead of recognizing that there can be and will be dire consequences no matter which action we take, you are only concerned with your political agenda of blasting Bush any chance you can get. You liberals blasted Bush for "not doing enough" when the North Koreans got their nukes, now suddenly he is doing too much in efforts to stop Iran.

    So what would Commander-in-Chief Bully do? Would you put pressure on them, or would you allow them to build their nukes? Inspiring liberals want to know.
     
  10. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Since best estimate indicate they are five to ten years away from being able to refine enough uranium to do so, what's the rush? And gosh, America spent the entire duration of the Cold War negotiating with the former Soviet Union on the issue of nukes. Why not engage Iran? No reason, aside from Chimpy and Co's "Paris Hilton School of Diplomacy"..."I don't like you, so I'm not going to talk to you!"
     

Share This Page