»After the US election: Attack against Iran is next«
|
|||
 ..the tool realises that just because he gets fired in four years time that shouldnt mean we ALL get fired from planet earth. Iran is next and can anyone say nukes around Dubya without him twitching? posted by Crossfade |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, IraqAfter the US election: Attack against Iran is next |
|
|||
 that's a separate debate entirely i thought about it too now that bush knows he doesnt have to hold back to ensure another election campaign...will he be more aggresive or now that the people have voted him in because of his resolve against terror...not that he doesnt need that backing will he choose to begin making concessions in order to gain peace between israel and palastine? which way will the pendulum swing now as for your comments crossfade it seems to me that you far to easily beleive our liberal media such as channel 4 news and itv news they have always been against bush and blair for their own ends(mainly their right to intrude as much as possible on everyones lives and say what they want about people and get away with it) and it is these things that blair has tried to curtail it may sound totalitarian,restricting the media...but they can be very damaging to people...particularly in criminal cases where the media can influence public outrage at someone who is yet to be found guilty of anything(child murder case suspects who turn out to be innocent etc) hence the media has played a part in trying to get the liberals into power(and therefor get an easier time of it while intruding into peoples lives...and yet criticise the governments for doing just that) posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I completely agree with your thoughts on the media and will addmit to taking to much of it in at times. These days i prefer to find my own details rather than listen to the spoon fed garbage of a 'controled' media anyway. I do not like Bush for one reason, he lies. Yes all politicians lie or 'spin' to get what they want but when this man lies thousands of people die. If he had just said he wanted Saddams head above his mantle piece i wouldnt have had a problem, but a war on terror? bullshit, the man uses americas fears against them. I wont deny he's done what a lot of leaders wouldnt dare do, stuck to his guns but it's who he's really trying to shoot that worries me. posted by Crossfade |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: the man uses americas fears against them. ive mentioned this before in that bush would be criticised if he gave the public no information on possible attacks if something else happened...the same people criticise him when he tries to keep the public informed of warnings the inteligence agencies recieve but attacks fail to materialise its a balance that he can never get right as there will always be people who will use whatever he does in the context of keeping the public informed against him i don't want to get into the lies argument again...its generally unprovable from both sides of the debate anyway so its kind of irrelevant its now time to sort the problems that a poorly executed plan in iraq is causing whether for bush this now means bombing hell out of them even more because he doesnt have to appease potential voters is debatable...only time will tell posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: kerry was never actually FOR anything right on brotha  political rhetoric is all that came out of his mouth, everyhing to get a vote, no opinion of his own...just whatever might get him into the white house
kerry kept talking about his plan for everything and telling people to go to johnkerry.com but may have over estimated how many were actually able to do that, or even took the time to even do so with our 2 party system, the older people who actually vote don't vote for canidates, they vote for their party, kids if they vote, vote for who their parents back, as seen by the same states going the same way as 4 years ago. which i don't neccessarily find appealing that's why i don't know how we can ever get past the 2 party system without some of the old people dying off 
i don't know how kerry got less votes than al gore, that's crazy to me Quote: I do not like Bush for one reason, he lies. Yes all politicians lie or 'spin' to get what they want but when this man lies thousands of people die. bush didn't lie, he stated what information was given, now the CIA and others, that's a different story...yes bush himself is responsible because he is the man in the hot seat, but to say he lied himself is simply not true Quote: but a war on terror? bullshit, the man uses americas fears against them. what's wrong with a war on terror? terrorists woke the sleeping giant and he's a little cranky. we hadn't been part of the mass killings that the rest od the world has been enduring so we have a leader who decides it's time to do something about... so they will get what is coming to them... if you are disgusted with iraq, i understand, but i find it hard to understand being against the global war on terror Quote: ..the tool realises that just because he gets fired in four years time that shouldnt mean we ALL get fired from planet earth. i must have missed the headline where bush bombed great britain if you say this because you yourself are fearful that he has inflammed the terrorist, remember they were bombing people long before bush came into office Quote: its now time to sort the problems that a poorly executed plan in iraq is causing i agree with this statement, but hoe does bush himself help out except for funding or more troops? if it is a poorly executed plan, i don't think bush is giving military strategies himself, it's up to our boys on the ground. and trying to fight a war in which we must appease the world governments is a tough fight when you are fighting those who hide in hospitals, but we deal with it the best we can oh wait this thread was about the problem with kerry, whoops, well i'll tie it all together with i think G Dub is doing the best job we can now that we've gotten ourselves into this as we have and i can't believe we've mad it this far in the thread without the word proof poping up
posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
  Quote: Pentagon hawks have begun discussing military action against Iran to neutralise its nuclear weapons threat, including possible strikes on leadership, political and security targets.
... Referring to the European countries that negotiated the deal with Iran, Bush added: 'They do believe that Iran has got nuclear ambitions, as do we, as do many around the world. 'This is a very serious matter. The world knows it's a serious matter and we're working together to solve this matter.' posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.
The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition." ... Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know." "The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday. Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad. ... "The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites." posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Iran's top nuclear negotiator says Iran will retaliate and accelerate its efforts to develop nuclear technology if attacked by the US or Israel
... "If such an attack takes place then of course we will retaliate and we will definitely accelerate our activities to complete our fuel cycle and make nuclear fuel," he said. "But I do not think the United States itself will take such a risk," he added. "They know our capabilities for retaliating against such attacks." posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Israel has drawn up plans for a combined air and ground attack on Iranian nuclear installations if diplomacy fails to halt Tehran’s atomic program, London’s Sunday Times said.
The newspaper said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his inner cabinet had given “initial authorization” for a unilateral attack on Iran at a private meeting last month. U.S. officials have indicated they would not stand in Israel’s way if international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear projects fail, the paper said. “If all efforts to persuade Iran to drop its plans to produce nuclear weapons should fail, the U.S. administration will authorize Israel to attack,” the paper quoted an Israeli security source as saying. Tehran says its nuclear activities are aimed only at electricity generation but Washington and the European Union suspect Iran could use its program to make atomic bombs. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Under the threat of attack, Iran will most likely comply with diplomatic measures. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
 Register Log in |
The time now is 9 January 2009, 21:49 php B.B. |