Still subverting, they are just changing the name of it. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=693&e=7&u=/ap/20030520/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/pentagon_spying
Unfortunately, we are talking about a group o’ folks who think being called a “dittohead” is a compliment. :rolleyes:
(Yes, I know, the SDMBUS don’t generally consider themselves to be Limbaugh fans. I’m talking about the general matter of conservatism and groupthink, 'kay? Work with me here…)
Honestly, no, I don’t think they’re a major threat. I think they blew their wad on 9/11 and I don’t believe they would be capable of anything on that scale again.
But even if we grant that al-Qaeda is still a substantial threat, I would want to know that the Iranian government was actually aiding and abetting their campaign against the US as opposed to simply harboring a couple of fugitives.
Agreed, and then I’d have to be shown that it is indeed the government abetting al-Qaeda and not merely a dissident faction.
With respect to the U.S.'s latest claims about Iran, I think we should take another look at the Gulf War 2003 Scoreboard:
Total Weapons of Mass Destruction Found (As of May 28 2003):
0
I have a personal stake in this issue, and I have to say, “Oh, dear. Please please please, don’t let it happen.”
Some of you are going to view the following as simplistic. Feel free. Reality takes a bit more time for some of us to accept.
The world as we know it changed on September 11, 2001. It was the final act of a force that had been building for decades. The United States has tried to deal with Islamic Fundamentalism diplomatically since the late 1970’s. It hasn’t worked. The only thing that “those people” understand is force. The hostages in Iran were let go in 1980 because, in part, their captors feared Ronald Reagan. Kaddafi was a troublemaker on the world stage until his home was bombed in 1987. Since then? Silence. The United States has always had the power to confront terrorism and its enablers. The events of September 11th gave it the will to do so. Taliban? Gone. Saddam? See Ya. Trouble from Afgahnistan or Iraq for the United States? Not any more. These events have given a wake-up call to Syria, Iran and North Korea. By showing a willingness to use force, the United States can now say in effect “Want some of this? Didn’t think so. Crack down on the terrorists within your borders or we will do it for you.” To do nothing invites more attacks. Inaction is interpreted not as restraint but as a sign of weakness. Wake up. THESE PEOPLE DO NOT THINK THE WAY WE DO. Here is what I think is in the future. A shooting war with North Korea and a cold war with Iran. Both are unfortunate, but both are necessary to our long term future. The bad people will not go away or change thier behavior simply because we want them to. We have the power to crush them if need be. Be thankful that we do. We could be living in Isreal and taking our life in our hands every time we go to the store or ride the bus. I hear your fingers flying now regarding that last statement…something along the lines of we are inviting that to happen by our actions. It would eventually happen with our inaction as well. Doing nothing in the face of attack invites further attack. That should be obvious even to those who can’t part with their rose colored glasses.
please link to obituary.
Seven Americans Killed in Iraq in Three Days. You dumb or just stupid?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! NK will nuke Seoul if it looks like we will attack. That assumes they don’t shell it to oblivion first and nuke Japan. The wakeup call we have given is “get nukes quick so the USA doesn’t invade!”
Wait, i thought we were sending the wake up call. Plus they seem to think “Attack” which seems to be what we think as well. your logic is flawed.
the reverse is more likely unless that idiot in chief wants millions dead in the Korean peninsula.
Correct, the world doing nothing as we invade countries willy-nilly invites us to invade more countries. Maybe you aren’t as dumb as i thought (what? Taht wasn’t your point? nevermind.)
So would somebody please tell me what Iran (which has teh world’s fourht-largest oil reserves and second-largest natural gas reserves) needs a nuclear reactor for? And don’t use the words “Bush” or “Iraq” - the claims were bullshit, I never believed them, and never endorsed going to war in the first place. That doesn’t change the danger of Iran, the world’s number-one sponsor of terrorism, gaining nuclear weapons production capability.
I knew it wouldn’t be long.
Saddam? See Ya.
“please link to obituary.”
Sigh. He’s out of power and no longer has access to the tools of government. You know what I meant. Please resist the urge to obtuse.
Trouble from Afgahnistan or Iraq for the United States? Not any more.
“Seven Americans Killed in Iraq in Three Days. You dumb or just stupid?”
No…nor am I redundant or say two things that mean the same thing. I was referring to state sponsored government organized mischief.
These events have given a wake-up call to Syria, Iran and North Korea.
“HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! NK will nuke Seoul if it looks like we will attack. That assumes they don’t shell it to oblivion first and nuke Japan. The wakeup call we have given is “get nukes quick so the USA doesn’t invade!””
If you honestly think that countries hostile to the United States have not been given pause by our historically quick and decisive use of military power, I cannot help you with logic or facts.
Wake up. THESE PEOPLE DO NOT THINK THE WAY WE DO.
“Wait, i thought we were sending the wake up call. Plus they seem to think “Attack” which seems to be what we think as well. your logic is flawed.”
This statement is unclear and makes no sense. My point was that we do not have any reason to believe that they will behave as we will under the same circumstances. That is why I maintain that diplomacy is a waste of time with someone who thinks that they will be rewarded in heaven if they die in combat against you.
A shooting war with North Korea and a cold war with Iran.
'the reverse is more likely unless that idiot in chief wants millions dead in the Korean peninsula."
Perhaps you are correct. I must bow to your obviously superior geopolitical savvy.
Doing nothing in the face of attack invites further attack.
“Correct, the world doing nothing as we invade countries willy-nilly invites us to invade more countries. Maybe you aren’t as dumb as i thought (what? Taht wasn’t your point? nevermind.)”
Deliberately avoiding the point by attempting cutting sarcasm. You know as well as I do that was I was referring to is the fact that if the United States does not respond to terrorist attacks decisively, more such attacks will follow.
In Bizarro world?
The fellow that they were holding the hostages ransom for died. Reagan released the frozen Iranian assets. THEN the hostages were released.
Carter had some fool notion of not negotiating ith terrorists. The putz. Good thing Reagan showed us how to do it.
Well, of course they didn’t find any in Iraq. They were all moved to Iran, Syria, and two or three other countries to be named later once we see how those invasions… er, regime changes go.
Trust me.
"In Bizarro world?
The fellow that they were holding the hostages ransom for died. Reagan released the frozen Iranian assets. THEN the hostages were released."
Simon, I hate to tell you this, but Khomeni didn’t die until the mid-80’s. Also, the hostages were released as Reagan was taking the oath of office. He did not have the power to unfreeze anything yet. What was the point of your attempted nitpickery anyway? Were you offended by the positive reference to Reagan?
Ah, Miss Cleo Lives.
Because people in power cannot possibly do bad things. Just look at Osama. he is not a world leader and therefore has done nothing to the US.
so terrorism is only our problem if it is state sponsered. so These Afghanistan guys we should just ignore? (that’s right, there is no problem in Afghanistan anymore :rolleyes:)
You speak of logic yet you have constantly shown none in your posts. NK has NUKES. Iraq had a guy in a rusty tank. NUKES>tank
Since all Islamic people think so… :rolleyes:
please explain the logic of attacking the nation with nukes that is threatening us and not attacking the nation without them that is not threatening us. Since it is COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what we are doing now.
i know what you were referring to, and i was referring to the fact that our Roman Empire building will create more problems than it solves.
In conclusion: Where is Osama? Where is Saddam? Where are the WMD? Why is Al-Qaeda still a problem in countries we have “liberated”? How is de-stablizing a region and angering the populace supposed to make us safer? These are questions waving a flag can’t answer.
I just had to dig this one up from our buddy Sam Stone back on page 2:
Sam, I believe the answer we can expect from my increasingly “transparent” government is this:
“[T]he president has no plans on his desk” for attacking Iran at this time.
Besides, why waste a perfectly good appeal to Mom and apple pie on an off-election year?
I predict that the true nature of the threat evil Iran presents to America will not be fully exposed to us until the week of July 26, 2004.
And speaking of which, the Democrats do have one viable candidate ghosting around out there. How do I know this? Because the neo-cons have already started to smear him.
Evil One, the hostages absolutely were released on Reagan’s inauguration day, for eight billion frozen reasons and one war with you-know-who above and beyond the “fact” that Iran feared Reagan. The deal was negotiated by Reagan’s advisors. The real question is when the negotiations took place and whether the hostages won another three months of captivity at the hands of Bud McFarlane, Poppy Bush, and Bill Casey so that the Republicans might, ahem, steal yet another motherfucking election.
Regrettably, none of the Reagan staffers who met with Iranian officials prior to the election can recall what they discussed. I guess we’ll never know…
We might know if the Reagan Papers were to get released, but George W. Bush has already signed an order preventing this.
Yes, Khomeini died in 1989, but the fellow that they were holding the hostages ransom for was the Shah of Iran who died July 27, 1980.
Since everything else in this post has already been dissected, you might want to check the date of the Lockerbie bombing, done by our good pals in Libyan intelligence. December 1988.
This is one of the larger problems I have with Shrub’s Bible thumping in the executive office. He continually portrays America as a Christian nation and thereby paints terrorist crosshairs on all of our backs.
Theocracy must go. It has proven time and again to be a flawed system and one prone to producing dangerous fanatics. Even our home-grown variety seems to be sprouting some winners.
Although Ledeen is quite obviously a neocon, there is still some disturbing information in his article. Is there any independent verification for this stuff?
Some excerpts:
“Within the past two months, leaders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards were informed by the country’s National Security Council that the country would soon have nuclear weapons, and there are some well-informed people who believe that the regime is hoping to be able to test a device by the end of the summer.”
“The Islamic Republic has been a catastrophe for the Iranian people, ruining the economy, murdering, or torturing those secular and religious leaders who call for greater freedom, shamefully enriching a handful of mullahs while prostitution, drug addiction, and beggary spread like epidemics throughout the society, and spending tens of millions of dollars to create and support the most vicious terrorist organizations, from al Qaeda to Hezbollah.”
I’m beginning to feel as though there is little choice about Iran. I’ll ask Collounsbury to please give us his assessment of the Iranian nuclear arms race. I do not recall Iran ever rescinding its policy supporting the complete destruction of Israel. Iran’s possession of atomic weapons therefore bodes rather ill for both Israel and the United States. Combine all of this with mounting evidence that Iran may be harboring elements of al Qaeda and we have a potential powder keg. Iran’s petro-millions are not going to its people. Their economy is a train wreck and the Mullahs seem ill disposed to cure the problems. The revolutionary council continues to hand out death fatwas against even the most moderate of dissenters. All of this paints a completely unstable portrait and one that needs some real picture-straightening.
We might agree on many things but here, you are so out of touch as to be on another planet.
Al Qaeda will attack the United States just as soon as it has the wherewithal to do so. Providing they can get a nuke from Iran, they’ll lick the Mullahs’ asses clean for them if that’s what it takes.
Do you think for one moment that they’ll detonate that bomb in Britain to get back at Blair? Please be realistic.
Until glaring proof to the contrary, I am obliged to agree with this.
Gotta admit, I’d like you to explain the basis of your more advanced understanding of “those people”. Please define who you’re talking about, then tell us what you know about them besides what you’ve read in the right-wing blogs.
And this has been the problem throughout this discussion. That Al-Qaeda means to harm us by whatever means possible is beyond dispute. The question is, who else is helping them attack us, or is going to attack us on their own?
The Taliban was unquestionably harboring Osama and friends, so we went in after them. So far, so hoopy.
The connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda still seems to exist in the minds of the Bushies, even now that we’re in a position to move any affected intelligence ‘assets’ in Iraq to safety in the USA, then reveal exactly how we knew about this connection. And Iraq hadn’t represented a threat to its neighbors since the spring of 1991 - its military never really rebuilt from that defeat. (The sanctions did do some good.) So there was no reason to attack Iraq.
Now we come to Iran, which clearly has no desire to attack us directly. Are they in bed with Al-Qaeda? Only according to the same people who, as gobear points out, lied to us about Iraq.
So I agree with your point of “doing nothing in the face of attack.” But that’s only operative in the face of attack. That’s what you’ve gotta prove. So prove it.