Attack on Iran - IMMINENT!

i trust lieberman is willing to don the old steel helmet and get down and dirty in this war he is so willing to send american troops to fight in? then again the value of these lives when you examine exactly who they are, have no value.

maybe when the whole thing goes pear shaped all these politicians will be packed off to the thing they have started, along with all the idiots who supported them.

you have to remember all these characters who supposedly represent the populations of western "powers" are no more than fifth columnists who have done nothing but erode any power from the nations they represent.

manufacturing - down the drain, western powers produce bugger all now, thanks to the great schemes. all these great nations have reduced their people to paupers and half educated oafs. the only thing these nations export now is misery and good publicity for the "great works" they do. instead of doing something truly great we can only find glory and meaning in the destruction of other societies. whats even worse it is incredulous that people think that all this stuff is perfectly normal.

 

I have to apologize, right after I posted I saw Lieberman on Meet the Press, the neo-cons haven't given up on their agenda. He was selling a military attack on Iran like it couldn't wait until tomorrow.

 

I can't think of a more disasterous move than for the USA to attack Iran.

We have been threatening them for so long now, that I strongly suspect that - if attacked - Iran could launch some counterattacks here within the US's borders.

If that doesn't come to pass, the thought of America "precision bombing" Iran just makes my stomach churn.

Russia and China may step into the fray, and there's a very good chance that they won't be on our side.

 

The biggest problem I had with Lieberman's little speech was he's reiteration similiar to that used for going to war with Iraq that Iran was now part of 09/11. How many times do these politicians think we will fall for that? If we fall for this line of argument again, we just prove how stupid and open to marketing crap we are.

What about the Saudis who were proven to be implicitly involved with 09/11, why not bomb them.

 

I think those guys being dead - prevents them being bombed.

 

I don't know about that. There were no longer any wmd in Iraq, yet the U.S. bombed them anyway.

.

 

The rationale behind ''attacking Iraq'' was not solely down too WMDs - some people seem to not see that.

Edit: The point is if individual citizens of a state are orchestrating terrorist activity then the state is not too blame - unless warranted by evidence of their involvement.
gardener suggests action should be taken because of individual nationals of a state not because of the states behaviour.

 

I admit that. There was a whole gamut of other flimsy evidence that was used.

.

 

Over 60% of the American public thought that the 911 hijackers were Iraqi after Bush used Iraq and 911 in the same sentence time after time in the runup to the invasion. Not only were the hijackers already dead, but they were also not even Iraqi. Yet in the public's mind, that figment of their imagination was part of the reason they went along with the invasion.

.

 

True - BUT we all have opinions that are sometimes based on what can turn out to be flimsy inteligence - that is the nature of the beast. When it is a consensus and the majority believe it - then inevitably it becomes more credible.
I appreciate your opinion is what it is - but I can also recognise you are inteligent enough to know what every country thought at the time.
It is solely down to your prejudice you do not trust goverments for the decisions they make.

 

It was down to ''the publics'' ignorance and people outside the goverment with their own agenda that perpetuated the myth that Bush associated the two more than he did. If he says something twice and the critics say something else 100 times - what sticks in peoples minds ?.

 

Usually "imminent" means "real fucking soon"
haha

 

You are not a rocket scientist are you ?.

 

Nope. Now you're making things up. He said it again and again until people actually started believing it.

.

 

Nope. It didn't turn out to be flimsy evidence. It was flimsy from the start and they knew it. Even Powell admitted that.

People need to be responsible enough to question the politicians when they are doing a snow job on the public instead of believing everything they are told. I do cut some slack to people who fell for it considering the post-911 stupor that people were in. I don't cut any slack to people who are still falling for it.

.

 

I'm not making anything up - if people hear what they want too hear that is what is believed. The fact he stated a contary opinion and the media did not spin that out 30000 times is not my problem.

 

The big headline ''facts'' turned out to be wrong.
The nitty gritty can not be dismissed so easily.

 

And Bush only asks for $1 billion for each installment for his Iraq war. It's just that the media repeats it 100 times a month. We're only losing one troop per month also. It's simply reported a hundred times a month.

It's a subtle tactic the Bush administration used. Lawyers are good at this when they try to lead a witness or establish relationships that don't exist. They use the same items in the same breath enough times that people in their minds start to establish a false cause-effect relationship. The tactic is even more effective when people are in an emotional stupor, such as they were post-911.

.