Bush Promises to Nuke Iran

[eots]

I got your pissyass little neg rep, 1dummy.




Tell me, really, you can do better than that?!?!???!?!!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!

I don't do neg reps myself. I think they are juvenile. But, you do whatever makes you happy!!!!!!! Ohhhhhhhh, Kayyyyyy??????????

NEG REPS ARE A GIRLY MANS GAME

 

[Gunny]

http://presscue.com/node/38692

I do not see a quote from Bush threatening to nuke Iran.

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.

http://presscue.com/node/38692

I see Netanyahu claiming Bush agreed with his stance.

Also, I've never heard of your source/link. Got one from an ubiased and recognizeable media outlet?

 

[Gunny]

As your denial is not credible and is simply medical as I see it I will not attempt to treat you.




Where you been living, cowgirl? In the fuckin' boonies without newspaper or TV?

Fact is psycho, you got owned.

 

[CSM]

Fact is psycho, you got owned.

Say it isn't so!!!

 

[midcan5]

It is complete foolishness to think Bush is incapable of starting a war over questionable information. Or that his bellicose nonsense should not be taken seriously, this man takes his orders from god, and as with most crazies there is no telling what the voices are telling him today. Any of you wingnuts on here remember Iraq's shock and awe campaign or are your heads stuck so far in the sand you see nothing. We can only hope, and if you pray, pray he goes back to his farm before he screws up once more.

"President Bush gave warning last night that Iran’s pursuit of the atomic bomb could lead to a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East, and promised to confront Tehran “before it is too late”.

Mr Bush’s remarks, the starkest warning that he has made about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, came hours after President Ahmadinejad of Iran said that a power vacuum was imminent in Iraq and that Tehran was ready to fill it."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2343791.ece
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/10/iran-gunboats/

 

[doniston]

NEG REPS ARE A GIRLY MANS GAME

I strongly agree.

 

[CSM]

It is complete foolishness to think Bush is incapable of starting a war over questionable information. Or that his bellicose nonsense should not be taken seriously, this man takes his orders from god, and as with most crazies there is no telling what the voices are telling him today. Any of you wingnuts on here remember Iraq's shock and awe campaign or are your heads stuck so far in the sand you see nothing. We can only hope, and if you pray, pray he goes back to his farm before he screws up once more.

"President Bush gave warning last night that Iran’s pursuit of the atomic bomb could lead to a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East, and promised to confront Tehran “before it is too late”.

Mr Bush’s remarks, the starkest warning that he has made about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, came hours after President Ahmadinejad of Iran said that a power vacuum was imminent in Iraq and that Tehran was ready to fill it."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2343791.ece
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/10/iran-gunboats/

I read both links with interest...and started laughing when I got to the part in the second link where the attempt is made to show the Iranian boats couldn't be a threat because they only carried small arms. I guess it is very easy to forget the Cole when it doesn't fit in with the agenda.

 

[Gunny]

It is complete foolishness to think Bush is incapable of starting a war over questionable information. Or that his bellicose nonsense should not be taken seriously, this man takes his orders from god, and as with most crazies there is no telling what the voices are telling him today. Any of you wingnuts on here remember Iraq's shock and awe campaign or are your heads stuck so far in the sand you see nothing. We can only hope, and if you pray, pray he goes back to his farm before he screws up once more.

"President Bush gave warning last night that Iran’s pursuit of the atomic bomb could lead to a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East, and promised to confront Tehran “before it is too late”.

Mr Bush’s remarks, the starkest warning that he has made about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, came hours after President Ahmadinejad of Iran said that a power vacuum was imminent in Iraq and that Tehran was ready to fill it."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2343791.ece
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/10/iran-gunboats/

Sorry, no sale. The comments you quote from Bush do not threaten a nuclear strike on Iran by the US.

What I'd REALLY like to see, is for you to take your first paragraph and apply it to Saddam Hussein, or President Alphabet from Iran.

Based on what I see from some left-wongbots, I'd as soon rely on Bush's information as yours.

 

[Taomon]

Who publishes that web page? There is no identification or contact information. The article you linked to, and which attributed statements to Bush, had no source identified whatsoever. It did not even refer to unnamed sources. It instead refers to unidentified "Israel radio." That web page looked like a pure fabrication. Who wrote the article? Why is no author identified? The article says, "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." What radio in Israel? What station specifically? The veracity of this article cannot be checked. Why did no other media pick up such an important story if it is true, or can be verified? Where is the AP, AFP, etc., copy on this story?

Sorry. The fisrt video is from the BBC. The second was CNN. I don't know about Noam Chomsky's interview. I stand by the videos posted, not the content of the article. But the author did make a few valid points that if not warranted, at least would be worth exploring.

 

[Taomon]

I do not see a quote from Bush threatening to nuke Iran.




I see Netanyahu claiming Bush agreed with his stance.

Also, I've never heard of your source/link. Got one from an ubiased and recognizeable media outlet?

No. And that is the problem because that would seem like proof that I am wrong. When in fact news is so convoluted. In the states we do not report things that go against the plan. The rest of the world news is so demonized by our media because it usually goes against everything that American citizens are told and what the White House/Pentagon claim to be the truth.

In my opinion, the alleged incident is fake. I am sure there were Iranian boats near our cruise ships. I doubt that they made the threats as portrayed in the news. In fact, that voice we heard sounded so fake. The least they could have done was hire a voice specialist to fake an Iranian accent.

 

[onedomino]

No. And that is the problem because that would seem like proof that I am wrong. When in fact news is so convoluted. In the states we do not report things that go against the plan.

You are kidding right? The media's characterization of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have been almost entirely contrary to the "plan." For example, we have spent tens of billions on Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction, yet the overwhelming number of stories, day after day, center on terrorist attacks. How does that reporting support the "plan?" Now that these attacks have diminished, Iraq recedes from the front pages and reconstruction remains underreported. How does that support the "plan?" It is false to say that reporting how things "go against the plan" does not occur in the US. Such is obviously not the case, and one wonders about your motivation for saying so. Are you ill-informed or just a propagandist?

 

[CSM]

No. And that is the problem because that would seem like proof that I am wrong. When in fact news is so convoluted. In the states we do not report things that go against the plan. The rest of the world news is so demonized by our media because it usually goes against everything that American citizens are told and what the White House/Pentagon claim to be the truth.

In my opinion, the alleged incident is fake. I am sure there were Iranian boats near our cruise ships. I doubt that they made the threats as portrayed in the news. In fact, that voice we heard sounded so fake. The least they could have done was hire a voice specialist to fake an Iranian accent.

"Cruise ships"????

 

[JimH52]

I have to believe the US version. I think the videos are of the same incident but from different time periods.

I hope bush is not stupid enough to try to start another needless was.

 

[Taomon]

You are kidding right? The media's characterization of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have been almost entirely contrary to the "plan." For example, we have spent tens of billions on Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction, yet the overwhelming number of stories, day after day, center on terrorist attacks. How does that reporting support the "plan?" Now that these attacks have diminished, Iraq recedes from the front pages and reconstruction remains underreported. How does that support the "plan?" It is false to say that reporting how things "go against the plan" does not occur in the US. Such is obviously not the case, and one wonders about your motivation for saying so. Are you ill-informed or just a propagandist?

Constantly reporting on terrorist attacks, insurgencies and any aggression - labeling it as terrorist inappropriately, is called fear-mongering. That is part of the plan.

Fear-mongering has enabled the Bush administration to push through policies that normally would be rejected such as the Patriot Act, domestic spying, suspending Habeas Corpus, and so on.

 

[Taomon]

"Cruise ships"????

Sorry, I meant war ships.

 

[Taomon]

I have to believe the US version. I think the videos are of the same incident but from different time periods.

I hope bush is not stupid enough to try to start another needless was.

I disagree. I don't believe the US and I know Bush is dumb enough to attack Iran.

 

[onedomino]

Constantly reporting on terrorist attacks, insurgencies and any aggression - labeling it as terrorist inappropriately, is called fear-mongering. That is part of the plan.

Fear-mongering has enabled the Bush administration to push through policies that normally would be rejected such as the Patriot Act, domestic spying, suspending Habeas Corpus, and so on.

Give us some examples of the media labeling attacks as terrorist inappropriately.

 

[Taomon]

Give us some examples of the media labeling attacks as terrorist inappropriately.

Don't bother to check for yourself. This is the part where I provide links and you state that I or the links are wrong and you feel smug or vindicated.

This is getting old. You die hards just will not accept that your precious Bush and the media outlets that cater to him are lying to you.

Oh well, have fun reading these, all instances where they discuss terrorist attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of the attacks were insurgencies and not terrorist:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir040317_2_n.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01terror.html
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040604a_Terror.html
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/467
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043001663.html

 

[Annie]

Don't bother to check for yourself. This is the part where I provide links and you state that I or the links are wrong and you feel smug or vindicated.

This is getting old. You die hards just will not accept that your precious Bush and the media outlets that cater to him are lying to you.

Oh well, have fun reading these, all instances where they discuss terrorist attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of the attacks were insurgencies and not terrorist:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir040317_2_n.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01terror.html
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040604a_Terror.html
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/467
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043001663.html

Exactly how are YOU defining insurgencies vs. terrorism? I subscribe to the idea that if civilians are the target, then it's terrorism. I just went to the first site, msnbc, don't see how you would call that insurgents.

 

[onedomino]

Don't bother to check for yourself. This is the part where I provide links and you state that I or the links are wrong and you feel smug or vindicated.

This is getting old. You die hards just will not accept that your precious Bush and the media outlets that cater to him are lying to you.

Oh well, have fun reading these, all instances where they discuss terrorist attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of the attacks were insurgencies and not terrorist:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir040317_2_n.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01terror.html
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040604a_Terror.html
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/467
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043001663.html

You are sick. I checked just the first link where non combatants were murdered in a market place. Homicide bombers attacking non combatants in a crowd to murder innocent men, women, and children you label insurgent. I label you reprehensible.