Hold on to your kids. Their next stop? Tehran.

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Magnetic Poles, Aug 13, 2005.

  1. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pres. Bush goes on Israeli television and threatens military force against Iran. Yeah, lets justify their belief that they NEED the bomb by threatening them.

    Hold on to your kids folks...the draft is coming back.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8933866/
     
  2. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Not only that, but I read they are thinking of raising the current age for enlistment to the ripe old age of 42. So, I guess, it works hand-in-hand with outsourcing. Your job moves overseas, you collect unemployment (if you can live on that) until your benefits run out, and then enlist so you'll get a check. Be all that you can be.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are not going to attack Iran.

    The draft is not coming back for the forseeable future.

    Israel is not going to attack Iran, either - LINK

    The scaremongering that goes on on this board is ridiculous.
     
  4. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    You didn't call it "scarmongering" a few months ago when you were going on and on about how you switched back to the Republican party and supported Bush because of this "war on terror." You didn't call it "scarmongering" when you declared this fight to be "World War III." What gives?
     
  5. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    You didn't call it "scarmongering" a few months ago when you were going on and on about how you switched back to the Republican party and supported Bush because of this "war on terror." You didn't call it "scarmongering" when you declared this fight to be "World War III." What gives? </font>[/QUOTE]When the neocons engage in this type of rhetoric it's called "emphasis" Terry. For anyone else it's scaremongering. Right Ken? [​IMG]
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are engaged in a real war in Iraq, in a real war with al Qaeda.

    That' reality, not creating a bunch of hoopla about "WE'RE GOING TO ATTACK IRAN" or "THE DRAFT IS GOING TO BE REINSTATED", etc., etc., ad nauseum.
     
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    We are engaged in a real war in Iraq, in a real war with al Qaeda.

    That' reality, not creating a bunch of hoopla about "WE'RE GOING TO ATTACK IRAN" or "WE'RE GOING TO ATTACK IRAN", etc., etc., ad nauseum.
    </font>[/QUOTE]The pretexts for invading Iraq was mostly made of hoopla from the begining. The official policy was the removal of Saddam. Problem the American people probably wouldn't go along with policy without the proper "emphasis" being massaged in the ole cranium of the collective with a sledge hammer.

    I suspect that the greater share of events attributed to Al-Qaeda and it's masterminds, is mostly hoopla in keeping with the neocon noble lie theory amd using enough "emphasis" to convince the puplic to go along with policy. The policy can be found in The Grand Chessboard and at PNAC .
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    PNAC, smeeNAC. :D
     
  9. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Our craniums are being massaged with "emphasis" once again. But we won't be fooled by it this time will we Ken? :cool:
     
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are Oklahoma troops doing in Arkansas?
    Who are they defending, them Oklahoma boys?
    Why are they dying in a foriegn land?
    I ain't lettin' my son go there :(

    Thank you, I'd rather say:

    What are Oklahoma troops doing in Iran?
    Who are they defending, them Oklahoma
    military children?
    Why are they dying in a foriegn land?
    I ain't lettin' my grandson/grandaughter
    go there :(
     
  11. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    I propose an American Foreign Legion. WE lease a few thousand acres in the most miserably poor country in the world for a base and then offer American citizenship no questions asked for anyone who puts in 8 or 10 years. They would fight foreign wars and not steo foot in the USofA until time served.
     
  12. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    I seriously doubt that the Iran dispute will require force, but if Pres. Bush had said that under no circumstances would we ever use force, then Iran knows that all they have to do is not give in to diplomatic pressure, and they've won.

    Even if force is required, I doubt that a full-scale invasion would be the MO. Cruise missiles and air strikes could do the job, IMO.
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The bar will be much, much higher for any future congressional resolution like the one for the attack on Iraq.

    Folks like me who support the Iraq war will have two words coming out of our mouth if we are presented evidence that another country is a threat to our security - "Prove it."
     
  14. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed,

    What in the world are you talking about?
     
  15. blackbird

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ed,

    What in the world are you talking about?
    </font>[/QUOTE]JB---you done "messed up" now, MAN!!!

    Don't ever ask Ed what he's talkin' about----he'll "filibuster" ya!!! Right here on the board!! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  16. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    If he does that, I will invoke the Nuclear Option...and there will be no compromise from me... [​IMG]

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  17. emeraldctyangel

    emeraldctyangel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh my goodness! Hide under the bed, maybe they wont notice!

    I agree. This is ridiculous.

    You know, whenever I am full of fear, I just pray. Why dont you try that instead?
     
  18. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    The bar will be much, much higher for any future congressional resolution like the one for the attack on Iraq.

    Folks like me who support the Iraq war will have two words coming out of our mouth if we are presented evidence that another country is a threat to our security - "Prove it."
    </font>[/QUOTE]Prove that nuclear device that was detonated in one or more of our major cities was an Al-Qaeda or Irianian plot? Yeah right.

    The policy is to attack Iran, in the case of that happening not to figure out "who done it" and act accordingly.

    A recent poll shows six in ten Americans think a new world war is coming: the same poll says about 50 percent approve of the dropping of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Somewhat inexplicably, about two-thirds say nuking those two cities was "unavoidable." One can only wonder, then, what their reaction will be to this ominous news, revealed in a recent issue of The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi:

    "The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

    Two points leap out at the reader – or, at least, this reader – quite apart from the moral implications of dropping nukes on Iran. The first is the completely skewed logic: if Iran has nothing to do with 9/11-II, then why target Tehran? As in Iraq, it's all a pretext: only this time, the plan is to use nuclear weapons. We'll wipe out the entire population of Iran's capital city because, as Paul Wolfowitz said in another context, "it's doable."

    The other weird aspect of this "nuke Iran" story is the triggering mechanism: a terrorist attack in the U.S. on the scale of 9/11. While it is certain that our government has developed a number of scenarios for post-attack action, one has to wonder: why develop this plan at this particular moment? What aren't they telling us?

    I shudder to think about it

    SOURCE
     
  19. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Undoubtly if (and I pray it doesn't happen) a nuclear device was detonated in the USA the paper work and ID's of the terrorists would be found in good condition and just hours after the explosion again. Terrorists seem to always use bombproof/fireproof ID and leave countless clues behind so we know who dunnit after the deed is done. Stupid terrorists.
     
  20. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh my goodness! Hide under the bed, maybe they wont notice!

    I agree. This is ridiculous.

    You know, whenever I am full of fear, I just pray. Why dont you try that instead?
    </font>[/QUOTE]ECA,

    Where did I say I was afraid or advocating hiding under a bed? I am certainly not "full of fear".

    It is always amazing to me how people read things that are not written.
     

Share This Page

Loading...