US prepares battlefield in Iran

[BrianH]

are you for real? first of all, why isn't this all over the news?

remember the NIE said Iran stopped trying to build weapon grade nukes and bush said all that proved was that iran was trying to build one?

as if that's enough reason to invade?

u r a good german.

and don't worry about the libs holding their breath when I post because no one is swallowing what you are serving.

u'r either rich or dumb.

most of my friends that are sheep are voting for obama. they don't know if i'm a conspiracy nut or if i'm just as brainwashed as you. all they know is the gop did a bad job. so they know more than you.

Well let's see here...considering Bush doesn't have much time in office, and plans are being put in place to invade Iran, would it not be your magnifiscent Obama (given he wins) that will be carrying out this affair? Wrap that around your brain for a second....

 

[Paulie]

Well let's see here...considering Bush doesn't have much time in office, and plans are being put in place to invade Iran, would it not be your magnifiscent Obama (given he wins) that will be carrying out this affair? Wrap that around your brain for a second....

If plans are being put in place CURRENTLY to invade Iran, those would be the plans of the current administration. There may be a general military contingency plan that would always exist, but if there are real plans in the works to invade Iran they are, and will be, carried out by this admin.

I'm not sure the Bush admin would draw up their plans for war, and then hand them over to Obama's admin to use. That doesn't make much sense. Obama's admin would most likely have their OWN plans they would use. Remember, this cabinet that exists now is Bush's. When he leaves, so does his cabinet.

 

[BrianH]

If plans are being put in place CURRENTLY to invade Iran, those would be the plans of the current administration. There may be a general military contingency plan that would always exist, but if there are real plans in the works to invade Iran they are, and will be, carried out by this admin.

I'm not sure the Bush admin would draw up their plans for war, and then hand them over to Obama's admin to use. That doesn't make much sense. Obama's admin would most likely have their OWN plans they would use. Remember, this cabinet that exists now is Bush's. When he leaves, so does his cabinet.

I'll agree to that, but I'm not sure I would believe that Bush is planning to invade Iran. Unless the Bush admin. is planning on a 5 month invasion and success, then I see know reason why the Bush admin. would even plan this if they didn't plan on it continuing into the next administration.

 

[Taomon]

Because they have beating the drums of war with Iran for some time now. It is obvious that Bush fuck up as much as he can before leaving office.

 

[BrianH]

Because they have beating the drums of war with Iran for some time now. It is obvious that Bush fuck up as much as he can before leaving office.

What I am saying, is that beating his drum won't do crap because he doesn't have that long in office. Unless he plans on toppling Iran's regime and complete, what has taken years in Iraq, in only 5 months, the NEXT president will have to carry out the Invasion. It's highly unlikely that the Bush administration will invade Iran in the remaining 5 months. And, if the planning continues or is discontinues, it will have to do so in the next admin.

That's all I'm saying, I'm not taking any sides between the Bush admin. or not, but I'm not going to blame something (that hasn't happened yet) on an administration that only has a few months left in office.

 

[jreeves]

Authorizing war and wanting to go to war are two different things. I think that if the Democrats had known that Bush would respond so quickly and recklessly, they would not have voted to authorize the war.

It is about time that it shows improvement. Still, it is too little too late. The war was unnecessary and poorly run.

Specific contents of the authorization act. If they didn't want the President to respond they would have adopted one of the amendments, the simple fact is that they seen a threat as well. Up until the war started improving they seen a political hingepin issue, now not so much.


The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[citation needed]
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mattskramer]

Specific contents of the authorization act. If they didn't want the President to respond they would have adopted one of the amendments, the simple fact is that they seen a threat as well. Up until the war started improving they seen a political hingepin issue, now not so much.


The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[citation needed]
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What amendments are you talking about?
I found quite a few no votes by Democrats. I’m sorry that there were not more. I still contend that an authorization is not the same as a call to go to war. If Democrats knew that Bush would have acted so quickly, the vote would have been different. I wonder how the vote would have gone if the authorization went like this:

“We think that we should declare war on Iraq immediately.”

 

[jreeves]

What amendments are you talking about?
I found quite a few no votes by Democrats. I’m sorry that there were not more. I still contend that an authorization is not the same as a call to go to war. If Democrats knew that Bush would have acted so quickly, the vote would have been different. I wonder how the vote would have gone if the authorization went like this:

“We think that we should declare war on Iraq immediately.”

These amendments......that would have restricted his authority...

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Amendments Offered to the Senate Resolution

[edit] The Byrd Amendment
Affirmed that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq[citation needed]. Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)

Defeated 14 - 86.


[edit] The Levin Amendment
Urged to U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorized U.S. use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution. Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

Defeated 24 - 75.


[edit] The Durbin Amendment
Restricted the use of force authorization to cover only an immediate threat from Iraq rather than a continuing threat. Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).

Defeated 30 - 70.

 

[sealybobo]

Dude 40% of the media has admitted they are liberals I have posted proof, while only 25% say they are conservatives. What else is there to be said?

YOUR HOMEWORK
1. what 5 companies own almost 100 percent of the media.

i'll give you one. clearchannel.

do you think rove politicized the gov, military, justice dept, religion, and forgot the media?

we know exactly how the gop did it. books are written about it.

either you are dumb or think we are dumb.

bush fudges the economic numbers. what makes you think your media survey is accurate?

who decides what story are aired?

lincoln asked the media to take it easy on him during the civil war. you think bush, chaney and rove are above manipulating the media?

think of all the bush appointees that wil stay in power if mccain wins. scary. sabotures. traitors. treasonist hacks from Regency U. what a joke.

 

[jreeves]

YOUR HOMEWORK
1. what 5 companies own almost 100 percent of the media.

i'll give you one. clearchannel.

do you think rove politicized the gov, military, justice dept, religion, and forgot the media?

we know exactly how the gop did it. books are written about it.

either you are dumb or think we are dumb.

bush fudges the economic numbers. what makes you think your media survey is accurate?

who decides what story are aired?

lincoln asked the media to take it easy on him during the civil war. you think bush, chaney and rove are above manipulating the media?

think of all the bush appointees that wil stay in power if mccain wins. scary. sabotures. traitors. treasonist hacks from Regency U. what a joke.

What does all that ranting have to with the majority of the media admitting that they are liberals? If you want to discuss other issues we can do that but start a new thread.

 

[sealybobo]

Well let's see here...considering Bush doesn't have much time in office, and plans are being put in place to invade Iran, would it not be your magnifiscent Obama (given he wins) that will be carrying out this affair? Wrap that around your brain for a second....

that's easy. obama will call a truce with iran and immediately hold talks with iran to discuss splitting up iraq with them. we get the sunni oil wells. because we can't let the sunnis perish. but combat missions are done. we need the troops in afgan. al queda is getting stonger on the pakistan border.

bush n chaney love the blackwAter kbr haloburton part of this war. that's over when obama wins.

you believe lies and spin. good german.

big oil isn't paying for the war. that's over.

socialize oil, health and regulate for the middle class and poor. deregulate the media. nothing to worry about if its alreAdy liberal.

so many holes in your positions.

 

[jreeves]

that's easy. obama will call a truce with iran and immediately hold talks with iran to discuss splitting up iraq with them. we get the sunni oil wells. because we can't let the sunnis perish. but combat missions are done. we need the troops in afgan. al queda is getting stonger on the pakistan border.

bush n chaney love the blackwAter kbr haloburton part of this war. that's over when obama wins.

you believe lies and spin. good german.

big oil isn't paying for the war. that's over.

socialize oil, health and regulate for the middle class and poor. deregulate the media. nothing to worry about if its alreAdy liberal.

so many holes in your positions.

 

[Taomon]

What I am saying, is that beating his drum won't do crap because he doesn't have that long in office. Unless he plans on toppling Iran's regime and complete, what has taken years in Iraq, in only 5 months, the NEXT president will have to carry out the Invasion. It's highly unlikely that the Bush administration will invade Iran in the remaining 5 months. And, if the planning continues or is discontinues, it will have to do so in the next admin.

That's all I'm saying, I'm not taking any sides between the Bush admin. or not, but I'm not going to blame something (that hasn't happened yet) on an administration that only has a few months left in office.

What makes you think Bush cares if he finishes a war with Iran? You actually think he would not start a war without finishing it within 5 months.

 

[sealybobo]

5 month invasion and success, then I see know reason why the Bush admin. would even plan this if they didn't plan on it continuing into the next administration.

lol. with bush's track record, you want him making this decision. its like a buddy of mine. he screwed his best friends wife. when I saw him talking to my girl, I punched him in the back of the head.

congress instead will let bush try so mccain is forced to defend that move. we'll see if america wants war with iran.

and I wouldn't put it past bush to pull a mugabi and delay elections because we are in a war. and you would defend that too. treasonist, unamerican, unconstitutional, illegal, corupt, greed, stupid, racist, homophobe, hypocritical...

 

[JimH52]

sealy, you should have punched him in the face. bush would be totally out of his mind to start a war with Iran now...but hey the argument could be made that he is.

But it is a point that another front in the war right now could instill a degree of fear in the voters, once again, and would give McCain a greater chance of winning. The GOP used fear in 2004 to give gw his second term. It stands to reason that an attack against Iran could prevent the GOP from suffering the massive losses that many politicos are predicting.

So can you pay $10 for a gallon of gas?

 

[sealybobo]

Lets say obama his to stay the course and toe the line for corporate america, so you guys say, "their all corrupt". if that is true, at least obama will throw us a bone. so he might kiss corporate americas collective ass. so what? what he will do is take away from the top 10 percent richest americans. those ppl will never vote for him.

he might get a little tough with corporate coruption, enron loopholes and regulations, but he is going to end unfair taxbreAks so rich ppl, watch out. I hope you saved your bush tax breaks. you should have never got the reagan tax breaks let alone the bush ones. not during a time of war. went on the debt. made china rich. sold america to foreign interests. dubai port deals...

dumb americans. hate em.

 

[jreeves]

Lets say obama his to stay the course and toe the line for corporate america, so you guys say, "their all corrupt". if that is true, at least obama will throw us a bone. so he might kiss corporate americas collective ass. so what? what he will do is take away from the top 10 percent richest americans. those ppl will never vote for him.

he might get a little tough with corporate coruption, enron loopholes and regulations, but he is going to end unfair taxbreAks so rich ppl, watch out. I hope you saved your bush tax breaks. you should have never got the reagan tax breaks let alone the bush ones. not during a time of war. went on the debt. made china rich. sold america to foreign interests. dubai port deals...

dumb americans. hate em.

Nope the top 10 percent won't vote for Obama. Makes you wonder if Obama's rhetoric matches what his policies will actually be?

Obama Visits Billionaires Row

In the Haight, stencils of Barack Obama's smiling face are decorating the sidewalk. But in real life, he is turning up in more lucrative venues: The candidate will be around here on April 6, at a series of events that includes three $2,300-a-head maximum-strength fundraisers: Sara and Sohaib Abbasi are throwing a luncheon in Atherton; he'll zip up to Nancy and Bob Farese's house in Kentfield in mid-afternoon; and proceed from there to Ann and Gordon Getty's in San Francisco.
Your trusty party-animal-by-proxy has tried to infiltrate these events, but transparency seems to be fogged up. No media eyes allowed on the collection kettles; when the gifts are big, the press is barred.

Obama bills himself as a man of the people, who will beat down big business. ... Given his populist stance, Obama's recent trip to the Bay Area, during which he hobnobbed only with the richest and most famous, is amusing, since it either presents a man with no discernible principles or it presents a bunch of rich people who are allowing themselves to be led like lambs to the slaughter.
...
The 46-year-old Democratic senator started the day in Atherton [really rich people], made his way to Marin [really rich people] and then was due in at the Getty [plutocrats] mansion in San Francisco for another event.

Actually, the political pandering from Obama, on the one hand, and the stupid fawning from the rich, on the other hand, wasn't what I found so irritating about the IJ article. Politics in America is, after all, mostly about power, and Obama looks as if he will have the power and these people think that they can buy access. End of story.

 

[Gunny]

What amendments are you talking about?
I found quite a few no votes by Democrats. I’m sorry that there were not more. I still contend that an authorization is not the same as a call to go to war. If Democrats knew that Bush would have acted so quickly, the vote would have been different. I wonder how the vote would have gone if the authorization went like this:

“We think that we should declare war on Iraq immediately.”

I don't agree. The Democrats were every bit as gung-ho as the Republicans and were more than willing to pass off their responsibility -- and blame if there was going to be any -- onto the President.

Congress -- not Democrats nor Republicans -- abdicated its responsibility. The usual suspects like to blame Bush for amassing and consolidating power in the Executive Branch, but he could not have done it without Congressional inaction.

An authorization to use whatever force necessary is shirking the responsibility of declaring war and while you may argue that it is not he same as a declaration of war on paper, it amounts to the same thing in its real-world application.

 

[JimH52]

I hope you saved your bush tax breaks. you should have never got the reagan tax breaks let alone the bush ones. not during a time of war. went on the debt. made china rich. sold america to foreign interests. dubai port deals...

dumb americans. hate em.

bush's tax breaks made me some money when I sold a capital investment but I maintain to this day that the tax breaks, when we were at war, were terribly ill-conceived and ill-timed. Never have we seen tax breaks during a war. The weak dollar is just one results. It will take generations for the US to recover from bush's mismanagement, if we are able.

 

[jreeves]

Nope the top 10 percent won't vote for Obama. Makes you wonder if Obama's rhetoric matches what his policies will actually be?

Obama Visits Billionaires Row

In the Haight, stencils of Barack Obama's smiling face are decorating the sidewalk. But in real life, he is turning up in more lucrative venues: The candidate will be around here on April 6, at a series of events that includes three $2,300-a-head maximum-strength fundraisers: Sara and Sohaib Abbasi are throwing a luncheon in Atherton; he'll zip up to Nancy and Bob Farese's house in Kentfield in mid-afternoon; and proceed from there to Ann and Gordon Getty's in San Francisco.
Your trusty party-animal-by-proxy has tried to infiltrate these events, but transparency seems to be fogged up. No media eyes allowed on the collection kettles; when the gifts are big, the press is barred.

Obama bills himself as a man of the people, who will beat down big business. ... Given his populist stance, Obama's recent trip to the Bay Area, during which he hobnobbed only with the richest and most famous, is amusing, since it either presents a man with no discernible principles or it presents a bunch of rich people who are allowing themselves to be led like lambs to the slaughter.
...
The 46-year-old Democratic senator started the day in Atherton [really rich people], made his way to Marin [really rich people] and then was due in at the Getty [plutocrats] mansion in San Francisco for another event.

Actually, the political pandering from Obama, on the one hand, and the stupid fawning from the rich, on the other hand, wasn't what I found so irritating about the IJ article. Politics in America is, after all, mostly about power, and Obama looks as if he will have the power and these people think that they can buy access. End of story.

Obama arrives at billionaires row....