|
If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran
|
| |
If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran
Paul Craig Roberts
The war in Iraq is lost. This fact is widely recognized by American
military officers and has been recently expressed forcefully by Lt.
Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of US forces in Iraq during the
first year of the attempted occupation. Winning is no longer an
option.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17834.htm
Bush has taken every desperate measure. Enlistment ages have been
pushed up from 35 to 42. The percentage of high school dropouts and
the number of recruits scoring at the bottom end of tests have spiked.
The US military is forced to recruit among drug users and convicted
criminals. Bacevich reports that wavers "issued to convicted felons
jumped by 30 percent." Combat tours have been extended from 12 to 15
months, and the same troops are being deployed again and again.
There is no equipment for training. Bacevich reports that "some $212
billion worth has been destroyed, damaged, or just plain worn out."
What remains is in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Under these circumstances, "staying the course" means total defeat.
|
| |
| |
Raymond wrote:
If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran
Paul Craig Roberts
The war in Iraq is lost. This fact is widely recognized by American
military officers and has been recently expressed forcefully by Lt.
Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of US forces in Iraq during the
first year of the attempted occupation. Winning is no longer an
option.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17834.htm
Bush has taken every desperate measure. Enlistment ages have been
pushed up from 35 to 42. The percentage of high school dropouts and
the number of recruits scoring at the bottom end of tests have spiked.
The US military is forced to recruit among drug users and convicted
criminals. Bacevich reports that wavers "issued to convicted felons
jumped by 30 percent." Combat tours have been extended from 12 to 15
months, and the same troops are being deployed again and again.
There is no equipment for training. Bacevich reports that "some $212
billion worth has been destroyed, damaged, or just plain worn out."
What remains is in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Under these circumstances, "staying the course" means total defeat.
They've already implemented a scorched America policy with the debt.
Two weeks folks, that's all you have. Make the best of it.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
|
| |
| |
If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran
Death to Iran!
Bomb Iran NOW!
|
| |
| |
Patriot Games wrote:
Death to Iran!
Bomb Iran NOW!
The Bushies invaded Iraq without understanding (or even considering) how
that act would affect the political situation in the Middle East and the
Persian Gulf, which is now worse for American interests than at any time
in history.
Why don't you try to imagine what the global results of nuking Iran
would do? My bet is that it would raise the ante between Muslims and
the west to a point where the currenet situation looks like a garden
party. There are more than 1.3 billion Muslims in the world - something
like one in five of the world's population. There are some 60 countries
that are at least majority Muslim.
I predicted in 2002 that invading Iraq would lead to chaos, civil war,
and the empowering of Iran. I was derided by the wingnuts at the time.
But, if anything, my predictions didn't go far enough.
I predict that if we bomb Iran, let alone nuke them, most of the Islamic
world will erupt in violence against Americans and America. I further
predict that not a single country in the world, except, ironically,
France, as well as Israel and possibly Saudi Arabia, will stand with us.
We will become the world's pariah to a degree that will make bin Laden
and 9/11 look bush league.
Do you really want that?
|
| |
| |
On Aug 29, 7:31 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
Raymond wrote:
They've already implemented a scorched America policy with the debt.
National Information Exchange Model
Katrina: what could we do with $456,278,478,000?
By WDavidStephenson | August 29, 2007
Too depressed over this anniversary to write much. I can't get
accurate numbers for what has been spent and will be spent eventually
to rebuild the Gulf Coast, but as of an hour or so ago, the National
Priorities Project estimated we've spent $456,278,478,000 in Iraq
(it's hard to get an accurate estimate because the numbers mount so
rapidly every minute... Can't help wondering how much farther along the
rebuilding would be, how much more could be spent to improve public
education, insure the 43 million Americans without health insurance,
ad nauseum if those bucks were being spent here. Great legacy you're
leaving, George.
--- WDavidStephenson
"NATIONAL DEFENSE, n. In U.S. political discourse: 1) The
pauperization of the nation through expenditures for deadly weapons
systems; 2) The bombardment and invasion of small countries. The
United States is, of course, the only nation entitled to such
'defense.' If the inhabitants of other countries resist the U.S.
government's 'defensive' measures, they become guilty of 'internal
aggression'; and if governments of other countries practice U.S.-style
national defense, they become guilty of 'naked aggression.'"
(U.S. government spokesmen repeatedly used the Orwellian term
'internal aggression' during the 1960s when referring to the
resistance of the Vietnamese to the U.S. occupation of their
country.)
-Chaz Bufe, The Devil's Dictionaries ("American Heretic's Dictionary"
section)
Two weeks folks, that's all you have. Make the best of it.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:05:19 -0400, Blue Sun <blue.sun@comcast.net>
wrote:
Patriot Games wrote:
The Bushies invaded Iraq without understanding (or even considering) how
that act would affect the political situation in the Middle East and the
Persian Gulf, which is now worse for American interests than at any time
in history.
Why don't you try to imagine what the global results of nuking Iran
would do? My bet is that it would raise the ante between Muslims and
the west to a point where the currenet situation looks like a garden
party. There are more than 1.3 billion Muslims in the world - something
like one in five of the world's population. There are some 60 countries
that are at least majority Muslim.
I predicted in 2002 that invading Iraq would lead to chaos, civil war,
and the empowering of Iran. I was derided by the wingnuts at the time.
But, if anything, my predictions didn't go far enough.
I predict that if we bomb Iran, let alone nuke them, most of the Islamic
world will erupt in violence against Americans and America. I further
predict that not a single country in the world, except, ironically,
France, as well as Israel and possibly Saudi Arabia, will stand with us.
We will become the world's pariah to a degree that will make bin Laden
and 9/11 look bush league.
Do you really want that?
People who support war against Iran don't care about the consequences.
|
| |
| |
On Aug 30, 3:30 pm, EFill4Zaggin <EFill4Zag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:05:19 -0400, Blue Sun <blue....@comcast.net>
wrote:
People who support war against Iran don't care about the consequences.
People who think Iran should be allowed to ship explosives and weapons
into Iraq and Afghanistan, and build nukes, don't care about the
consequences.
Iran MUST NOT have nukes, period!!
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:03:16 -0000, Truth-monger
<truthmonger9@gmail.com> wrote:
People who think Iran should be allowed to ship explosives and weapons
into Iraq and Afghanistan, and build nukes, don't care about the
consequences.
How would bombing Iran prevent them from continuing to do whatever it
is they're up to in Iraq?
Would attacking Iran encourage them to do it even more in retaliation?
Iran MUST NOT have nukes, period!!
The IAEA has found no evidence that they are building nuclear weapons
and an agreement is in place for Iran to widen its co-operation with
the IAEA and to answer more questions by the end of the year. There's
no need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities when an inspection regime is
already in place and will be extended further. Of course the
inspectors are a pain in the ass for Bush just as they were in Iraq -
if they find no evidence of his claims than it makes it harder for him
to go to war, which is his real objective. That's why Bush didn't want
to allow UNMOVIC to finish the job in Iraq - he was afraid that they
would find no evidence of WMD and this would undermine his case for
war. Ditto Iran and the IAEA now - it's just an excuse for Bush to
validate a pre-determined war.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:03:16 -0000, Truth-monger
<truthmonger9@gmail.com> wrote:
How would bombing Iran prevent them from continuing to do whatever it
is they're up to in Iraq?
Because they would be VERY busy cleaning up.
They would also be VERY busy trying avoid being overthrown by their
citizenry.
Would attacking Iran encourage them to do it even more in retaliation?
Nope.
|
| |
| |
On Aug 31, 8:08 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
Because they would be VERY busy cleaning up.
They would also be VERY busy trying avoid being overthrown by their
citizenry.
Riiiight, and the citizens would be so grateful to us that they would
form a pro US democracy.
BLP
|
| |
| |
On Aug 31, 8:08 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
Riiiight, and the citizens would be so grateful to us that they would
form a pro US democracy.
The Iranian citizenry is already pro-US and they already have a democracy.
But they would LOVE to be rid of the Guard and the Ayatollahs.....
So we will take care of that for them...
|
| |
| |
On Aug 31, 10:11 am, Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra...@msn.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:08 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:03:16 -0000, Truth-monger
<truthmong...@gmail.com> wrote:
People who think Iran should be allowed to ship explosives and weapons
into Iraq and Afghanistan, and build nukes, don't care about the
consequences.
How would bombing Iran prevent them from continuing to do whatever it
is they're up to in Iraq?
Riiiight, and the citizens would be so grateful to us that they would
form a pro US democracy.
BLP
Many Iranian citizens are very anti-Iranian gov't. Did you not read
about the riots after Iran put limits on fuel use?
|
| |
| |
On Aug 31, 1:47 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
"Baldin Lee Pramer" <baldinpra...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:1188569496.562439.277460@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
The Iranian citizenry is already pro-US and they already have a democracy.
But they would LOVE to be rid of the Guard and the Ayatollahs.....
So we will take care of that for them...
Yes we will! Amen and good @$#*ing riddance!!
|
| |
| |
On Aug 30, 12:05 pm, Blue Sun <blue....@comcast.net> wrote:
Patriot Games wrote:
The Bushies invaded Iraq without understanding (or even considering) how
that act would affect the political situation in the Middle East and the
Persian Gulf, which is now worse for American interests than at any time
in history.
Worse for all the world's interests actually, but the Middle East has
always been a place of extreme violence, and it's all because of the
cult of death which is Islam. The Bushies did understand and consider
how it could become more and more difficult. But look at the surge -
it's got Moqtada al Sadr on the run AGAIN! That's twice this year!
And now Iran is trying new tactics, by shelling the Kurds in northern
Iraq. Iran's actions against other Muslims isn't anyone's fault
except Iran's.
Why don't you try to imagine what the global results of nuking Iran
would do? My bet is that it would raise the ante between Muslims and
the west to a point where the currenet situation looks like a garden
party. There are more than 1.3 billion Muslims in the world - something
like one in five of the world's population. There are some 60 countries
that are at least majority Muslim.
We have enough bullets and bombs for all the evil Muslims 50 times
over. Bring em on! Islam is the cancer, America is the answer!
I predicted in 2002 that invading Iraq would lead to chaos, civil war,
and the empowering of Iran. I was derided by the wingnuts at the time.
But, if anything, my predictions didn't go far enough.
I predict that if we bomb Iran, let alone nuke them, most of the Islamic
world will erupt in violence against Americans and America. I further
predict that not a single country in the world, except, ironically,
France, as well as Israel and possibly Saudi Arabia, will stand with us.
Saudi won't stand with us, but the UK, France, Israel, Australia, and
Japan will. It's possible that it will be a NATO strike, and that
would be even better. And a few weeks ago, the UN said it would
help with Iraq, while this week they got Iran to soften. I don't
trust Iran period no matter what they say, but if the UN actually
comes thru in Iraq, then US troops will have relief.
We will become the world's pariah to a degree that will make bin Laden
and 9/11 look bush league.
Do you really want that?
Propaganda made us look like the world's pariah already. Don't you
think the world is aware of Iran's evil doings? We don't have much to
lose, unless Iran gets nukes. Iran will use their nukes, no doubt
about it.
|
| |
| |
On Aug 31, 2:30 pm, Truth-monger <truthmong...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 10:11 am, Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra...@msn.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:03:16 -0000, Truth-monger
<truthmong...@gmail.com> wrote:
People who think Iran should be allowed to ship explosives and weapons
into Iraq and Afghanistan, and build nukes, don't care about the
consequences.
How would bombing Iran prevent them from continuing to do whatever it
is they're up to in Iraq?
Because they would be VERY busy cleaning up.
They would also be VERY busy trying avoid being overthrown by their
citizenry.
Many Iranian citizens are very anti-Iranian gov't. Did you not read
about the riots after Iran put limits on fuel use?
Oh, yes, I am familiar with the pro Western feelings many Iranians
have. I fail to see how nuking them will heighten their love for us.
BLP
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:08:49 -0400, "Patriot Games"
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
Because they would be VERY busy cleaning up.
They would also be VERY busy trying avoid being overthrown by their
citizenry.
Nope.
Complete rubbish and I don't need to explain why. Anyone who thinks
that bombing Iran will improve the situation in Iraq is clinically
insane.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:47:09 -0400, "Patriot Games"
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
The Iranian citizenry is already pro-US and they already have a democracy.
But they would LOVE to be rid of the Guard and the Ayatollahs.....
So we will take care of that for them...
Nonsense - the pro-US people in Iran's society will become
fundamentalist as a result of being bombed to smithereens by the U.S.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:43:49 -0000, Truth-monger
<truthmonger9@gmail.com> wrote:
Propaganda made us look like the world's pariah already. Don't you
think the world is aware of Iran's evil doings? We don't have much to
lose, unless Iran gets nukes. Iran will use their nukes, no doubt
about it.
An agreement is already in place with the IAEA to resolve the nuclear
issue by November 2007. Inspections are less costly than bombing.
|
| |
| |
|