Bush Budget Plans for Iran Attack

[Marc and Olga 0]

Iran can talk all they want, I honestly believe that is all it is, TALK! Just to get this reaction from certain Republican presidents.

To me this all sounds EXACTLY the same as prior to our invasion of Iraq...EXACTLY the same...

[Drew and Tik 0]

Who are we dealing with exactly - the legacy of our past mistakes?

You can deflect all you want. The reality is the present and it must be dealt with. Iran is a danger to the whole area and it does not matter what happend in the 50's. What matters is now. Live in the present fishdude.

The actions of people "living in the present" is what turned Iran from a potential model ME democracy into a Theocratic/military dictatorship; and also what has gotten us into a complete disaster in Iraq, from which there is no end in sight.

The reality is that while Iran having a nuclear program would change the political landscape in that region - we don't know for sure exactly what would be the result of that. Contrary to the statements of certain individuals I don't believe that country is populated exclusively by frothing lunatics; or that we'd see nukes being lit off all over the MENA.

They have the stated goal of wiping Israel off the map. That is what would happen. A few bombs now or a nuclear war later. Those are the choices.

matching lunacy with lunacy .... great strategerie

I don't think it's lunacy to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran, they are a really ###### up nation and could pose a threat. On the other hand, I don't trust that this administration actually knows that these are nuclear facilities after the whole WMD BS in the Iraq war. If there is solid proof of the nuclear program, OK, bomb those facilities. If it's just big brother newspeak like last time then it's just a waste to piss so many people off for nothing (again).

With that said, if there were a list of top five nations in the world that we would be justified in attacking, Iran would be towards the top of that list. At the same time, so would Saudi Arabia, but they give us cheap oil so they're OK

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Given all the finger-pointing and muffled excuses about the lack of substantive proof of Iraq's WMD program - seems to me that our lot are more likely to blow up a bus station than a nuclear research facility.

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

Given all the finger-pointing and muffled excuses about the lack of substantive proof of Iraq's WMD program - seems to me that our lot are more likely to blow up a bus station than a nuclear research facility.

i give our folks in uniform more credit than that

[Caladan 19]

Given all the finger-pointing and muffled excuses about the lack of substantive proof of Iraq's WMD program - seems to me that our lot are more likely to blow up a bus station than a nuclear research facility.

i give our folks in uniform more credit than that

I give the folks in uniform credit but their bosses are the ones I don't.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Given all the finger-pointing and muffled excuses about the lack of substantive proof of Iraq's WMD program - seems to me that our lot are more likely to blow up a bus station than a nuclear research facility.

i give our folks in uniform more credit than that

You might. But lets not pretend that these plans originate with the armed forces.

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

Given all the finger-pointing and muffled excuses about the lack of substantive proof of Iraq's WMD program - seems to me that our lot are more likely to blow up a bus station than a nuclear research facility.

i give our folks in uniform more credit than that

I give the folks in uniform credit but their bosses are the ones I don't.

their bosses don't interpret the images nor plan the rest of the mission.

Given all the finger-pointing and muffled excuses about the lack of substantive proof of Iraq's WMD program - seems to me that our lot are more likely to blow up a bus station than a nuclear research facility.

i give our folks in uniform more credit than that

You might. But lets not pretend that these plans originate with the armed forces.

you been reading conspiracy theories again?

[Caladan 19]

The civilian government controls the military, charles, you know that. It's in the Constitution an' everything. Either that or you're saying it's the boys in uniform who screwed up Iraq, which is unfair to them. If Bush says he wants to drop bombs on Iran, the AUMF (sort of) gives him the ability to do so.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Given all the finger-pointing and muffled excuses about the lack of substantive proof of Iraq's WMD program - seems to me that our lot are more likely to blow up a bus station than a nuclear research facility.

i give our folks in uniform more credit than that

I give the folks in uniform credit but their bosses are the ones I don't.

their bosses don't interpret the images nor plan the rest of the mission.

Given all the finger-pointing and muffled excuses about the lack of substantive proof of Iraq's WMD program - seems to me that our lot are more likely to blow up a bus station than a nuclear research facility.

i give our folks in uniform more credit than that

You might. But lets not pretend that these plans originate with the armed forces.

you been reading conspiracy theories again?

Merely pointing out the obvious that the armed forces are not the ones who make the decision to go to war. So reading conspiracy theories? No.

Have you been reading at all?

[AmericanGentleman 0]

I don't think it's lunacy to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran, they are a really ###### up nation and could pose a threat.

I would say that attacking Iran because they "could pose a threat" is completely unconstitutional, but since our federal government no longer stays within its consitutional granted powers, it is a moot point. But I would like to point out that it is this very sort of reasoning that is driving countries like Iran to develope nukes. If Iran can gain a nuke, then it will deter the US from attacking them just as N Korea has.

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

The civilian government controls the military, charles, you know that. It's in the Constitution an' everything. Either that or you're saying it's the boys in uniform who screwed up Iraq, which is unfair to them. If Bush says he wants to drop bombs on Iran, the AUMF (sort of) gives him the ability to do so.

i'm well aware of that, tyvm. however, the ones who plan the air missions down to the last detail are not found in the white house.

Merely pointing out the obvious that the armed forces are not the ones who make the decision to go to war. So reading conspiracy theories? No.

Have you been reading at all?

yes, we know the armed forces don't make that decision. next inane remark?

[Caladan 19]

I don't think it's lunacy to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran, they are a really ###### up nation and could pose a threat.

I would say that attacking Iran because they "could pose a threat" is completely unconstitutional, but since our federal government no longer stays within its consitutional granted powers, it is a moot point. But I would like to point out that it is this very sort of reasoning that is driving countries like Iran to develope nukes. If Iran can gain a nuke, then it will deter the US from attacking them just as N Korea has.

This is a good point. People keep acting like Iran is a bunch of crazies, but if you're running a country and you want the U.S. to respect you, the smartest thing you can do is get a nuclear bomb. You can be bad and rational. We haven't invaded Pakistan.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The civilian government controls the military, charles, you know that. It's in the Constitution an' everything. Either that or you're saying it's the boys in uniform who screwed up Iraq, which is unfair to them. If Bush says he wants to drop bombs on Iran, the AUMF (sort of) gives him the ability to do so.

i'm well aware of that, tyvm. however, the ones who plan the air missions down to the last detail are not found in the white house.

Merely pointing out the obvious that the armed forces are not the ones who make the decision to go to war. So reading conspiracy theories? No.

Have you been reading at all?

yes, we know the armed forces don't make that decision. next inane remark?

Semantic nit-pickery

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

I don't think it's lunacy to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran, they are a really ###### up nation and could pose a threat.

I would say that attacking Iran because they "could pose a threat" is completely unconstitutional, but since our federal government no longer stays within its consitutional granted powers, it is a moot point. But I would like to point out that it is this very sort of reasoning that is driving countries like Iran to develope nukes. If Iran can gain a nuke, then it will deter the US from attacking them just as N Korea has.

explain please.

[Caladan 19]

The civilian government controls the military, charles, you know that. It's in the Constitution an' everything. Either that or you're saying it's the boys in uniform who screwed up Iraq, which is unfair to them. If Bush says he wants to drop bombs on Iran, the AUMF (sort of) gives him the ability to do so.

i'm well aware of that, tyvm. however, the ones who plan the air missions down to the last detail are not found in the white house.

Merely pointing out the obvious that the armed forces are not the ones who make the decision to go to war. So reading conspiracy theories? No.

Have you been reading at all?

yes, we know the armed forces don't make that decision. next inane remark?

They plan the air missions but if the intel is forged or just false, they'll bomb the wrong thing having planned it down to the last detail. (cf. factories, Sudan.)