White House mulling preemptive strikes.
By on Nov 15th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
White House mulling preemptive strikes.
Speaking with reporters about the pursuit of nuclear progams by Iran and North Korea, a senior U.S. government official told Reuters: “We, the United States, and others who might be threatened by these developments will have to look at how to respond and inevitably I think people will have to look at the question of pre-emption.”
UPDATE: Meet the Iran Enterprise Institute.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well, it worked so well the last time. Why not?
November 15th, 2006 at 2:38 pmBush will strike Iran in an attempt to preempt his own impeachment.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:38 pmWell it worked so well the last time, why not?
November 15th, 2006 at 2:39 pmSo you all say it should be off the table? Never ever strike?
November 15th, 2006 at 2:40 pmI wonder where Bush is going to get the soldiers to be targets in his upcoming two new wars? Will he bypass the Democratic-controlled Congress and declare a draft under some double secret provision of the Constitution that nobody else knows?
How this dumb son of a bitch can chew gum and tie his shows remains a mystery to me.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:41 pmSure, let’s AGAIN, ignorantly, throw caution to the wind. I mean, how much MORE Middle East hatred toward the US can we create?
November 15th, 2006 at 2:43 pmShrub could learn a thing or two about Diplomacy, stupid knee-jerk, alcoholic.
Christian terrorism at its best. Isn’t Christianity lovely?
The nations of the world need nuclear weapons to defend themselves of these god damned Christian monsters.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:45 pmOlmert is en route back to Israel grinning
“Manipulation Accomplished”
By all means throw a spit ball on that hornets nest and be surprised when 1 BILLION muslims scream WE ARE ALL IRANIANS.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:45 pmThis is simply more of (exactly) the same sabre rattling the busch-regime spewed the last time Dubious went overseas……
November 15th, 2006 at 2:48 pmHe was weak that time, he’s even weaker now, and everyone on the world stage knows it……..
White House mulling preemptive strikes.
F**ers. They all deserve to be bombed.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:48 pmBush will strike Iran in an attempt to preempt his own impeachment.
Comment by RealScientist
Even the goper faithful aren’t stupid enough to fall for that one again. Are they?
November 15th, 2006 at 2:48 pmSo you all say it should be off the table? Never ever strike?
Comment by Kevin
Live with fear, Kev. Your government appreciates your cowardice.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:51 pmBush will strike Iran in an attempt to preempt his own impeachment.
No, but I think God told him to start “the end of times” scenario…
November 15th, 2006 at 2:51 pmand if Iran uses them on Isreal? Strike or no Strike?
How meny dead Jews does it take to get the Dems to strike Iran?
How meny Americans?
November 15th, 2006 at 2:52 pmDefinition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome. Bush is insane!
November 15th, 2006 at 2:52 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
Yeah, chainee will tell the Isreali’s “Go ahead, we’ll back you up, that way we are only ‘defending our interests’……..”
November 15th, 2006 at 2:52 pmAnd, oh, #4, try to keep it in context, will ya?
Even the regime spokesperson said “pre-emptive strike…….”
How meny dead Jews does it take to get the Dems to strike Iran?
How meny Americans?
Comment by Kevin
How many Israel citizens and american citizens have been killed by Iranians? STFU, bedwetter.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:57 pmFOR SALE
One used Shrub; 5′9″ 190#, kinda flaky but still has some life left. Good for use during holidays, special events, international dignitary vists. Low maintenance, runs on pretzels.
Willing to trade for 5,000 Jihadists. PLEASE CALL 202-456-7041.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:57 pmKev,
November 15th, 2006 at 2:58 pmIsreal already has nukes. Let them defend themselves. We’ve created enough new terrorists on our own.
How meny dead Jews does it take to get the Dems to strike Iran?
ummmmmm 144,000? What do I win?
How meny Americans?
zero, bring em home! DId I get the extra credit question correct, also?
Comment by Kevin — November 15, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
November 15th, 2006 at 3:00 pmYou have really nothing to offer here, do you Kevee boy
another hater of free speach.
So Isreal should strike?
November 15th, 2006 at 3:01 pmEven the goper faithful aren’t stupid enough to fall for that one again. Are they?
hell, cnn can’t wait for the mushroom cloud. second to mexicans, iran is second on lou dobbs’ hitlist; not to mention blitzer’s subservience to netanyahu and likud.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:04 pmanother hater of free speach.
Comment by Kevin
Yeah, I wanna bomb people…. Im a hater, right.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:04 pmSo Isreal should strike?
Comment by Kevin
Why don’t you ask them, it’s not my problem.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:05 pmKevin,
You do understand what nuclear war is, don’t you? The effects will be felt worldwide, not just in the country struck. I hate to be rude…well, no I don’t…but I’m not trying to be rude right now.
This is a time for protesting in the streets.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:06 pmI don’t want to bomb anyone. I don’t want to remove it as an option.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:09 pm“We, the United States, and others who might be threatened by these developments will have to look at how to respond and inevitably I think people will have to look at the question of pre-emption,” the official told reporters.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:10 pmWhy is it OK for Israel to have ‘double secret nukes’ while demanding the USA protect it from rogue nations?
Why?
Kevin, are you suggesting pre-emptive strikes?
Don’t post shit with questions without making it clear what you’re asking. That’s FUX News tactics…
‘Would Nuclear War Be Good For Israel?’
‘Should Bush Pull The Trigger On Iran?’
It makes for attention getting headlines, but shows the entire world what a knee jerk you are.
If you can’t add to a discussion, STFU.
Kevin…..
November 15th, 2006 at 3:10 pmDie Now for Peace stated: “…. let them defend themselves….”
Again, we are trying to follow a line of thought regarding pre-emptive strikes, which is an offensive strike.
Can’t wait to see the new “Mother of all coalitions” for this new and improved pre-emptive strike.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:10 pm#14. How many dead Americans did it take the Shrub to justify attacking Iraq? The number is Zero. So, by Bush’s “thinking” it will take the same number of dead Americans to attack Iran. And, asshole, while you’re in your “attack” mode, why not lets attack Angola, El Salvador, Fiji, Palau, Bhutan and a few others just in case they might some day pose a threat?
November 15th, 2006 at 3:11 pmI’m not talking about nuclear strike. Do you think any military action is off the table?
November 15th, 2006 at 3:13 pmENOUGH COLD BLOODED MURDER WHY NOT TALK _ ITS MUCH BETTER
November 15th, 2006 at 3:13 pm#4 Kevin,
No we should never strike first, remember we’re America. We are not supposed to be like Nazi Germany. Iran has just as much right to build WMD as any other nation. After all they have a lot of oil they want to keep out of capitalist pigs hands. And I think they understand using it against a country with 1000’s of nukes would be in vain. We have more nukes on submarines than they’ll ever build.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:17 pmI also think it is time to re-name the most recently vacated Cabinet post, (again)……
November 15th, 2006 at 3:19 pmGiven that it was changed from “Secretary of War” to “Secretary of Defense”, merely because it sounded better, how ’bout this time being simply honest, and calling it the “Secretary of Offense”?
Anyone care to second a nomination of Sen. McCain?
There is no such thing as pre-empt. Pre-empt means total war. After all the attack on Pearl Harbor was a Japanese pre-empt to destroy the US fleet in the Pacific. Japanese got more than what they planned for, a total military humiliation and defeat afterwards. Are our planners ready for war ,a bigger war than what they have on hand now in Iraq and Afghanstan, ?!!..,if so let the public know about it.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:20 pmKevin is just a troll, throwing out outrageous concepts in the hopes that someone takes the bait. That’s how he gets his jollies. He doesn’t care who dies or how many as long as he can have fun on the blogs.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:20 pm#31 Kevin,
Yes ALL pre-emptive attacks are OFF the table. Violence should always be a very very very last resort, and only after attacked. Not just because some country is trying to defend itself against those who wish to see them destroyed for religious beliefs, or worse Amerika’s capitalist greed.
What kind of lessons did your parents teach you? No wonder this country had such a problem with violence.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:21 pmKevin
If the U.S. has the right to pre-emptive military strikes because it thinks it’s about to be attacked, do other countries have the right to pre-emptively strike the U.S. for the same reason?
November 15th, 2006 at 3:22 pmKevin, there’s a beautiful place for you called Red State. Here’s a hint for you, you fascist pig. There is no situation, PERIOD, in which the United States (or ANY OTHER COUNTRY) is justified in a pre-emptive strike. In an ideal world, it would follow from that that wars would never get started, but I am aware we aren’t in an ideal world. The United States has been known internationally since its inception of ONLY getting involved when it is attacked or its allies are attacked. The few instances we have broken our policy against pre-emptive strikes have proven dishonorable and disastrous, especially in the short term.
We’ve already bitten off more than we can chew with Iraq. It was reasoning exactly like your foolish reasoning, Kevin, that got us into this in the first place.
So, yes. I’m going to answer you directly. Unless and until we see a nuclear cloud with Iran’s stamp on it, we need to stay OUT of Iran and focus on fixing what you neocon nitwits got us into with Iraq and Afghanistan. No more of your buddies playing at Big Brother and Cowboys and Arabs. Kevin, the people you idiolize and parrot are fools, and that makes you a fool for following them. Your buddy Bush goes and does this, and he WILL be impeached, if for nothing else than gross incompetance!
November 15th, 2006 at 3:25 pmYou folks do understand that they are not going to use conventional rockets for the nucks. They will do there best to sneak them to the most populated areas for maximum civilian collateral damage.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:26 pmAfter that, what’s the plan?
How about just taking out the nuclear weapons on the ground before they are used? Via a small ground force. Is that acceptable?
November 15th, 2006 at 3:32 pmSee what the South Koreans write about you lot, This is world opinion too
The Last War for Oil?
[Opinion] U.S. dependence on imported oil will fuel further conflict
There should be no doubt that the United States has waged two Gulf wars largely, if not solely, for oil. To ensure that the Iraq war is the last Gulf war, the administration and the Democratic majority in the new Congress must work together to enact an energy-independence bill to address the root-causes of these wars and free America from the shackles of foreign oil.
Whatever the rationale provided by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq, there should be no mistake that oil and securing its sources were the main catalysts of both this war and the previous one.
Although the United States must extricate its forces from Iraq honorably and without leaving the country in anarchy, as long as America remains dependent on imported oil, even a successful exit strategy will not prevent a third Gulf war. Oil will remain a precious commodity; a weapon used by authoritarian regimes, such as Iran, against Western interests and a target for scores of terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda that are bent on undermining Western economies.
Dependency on oil also will continue to compromise America’s policies, leading it to accommodate suppliers, and enrich unsavory regimes such as Venezuela, enabling them to oppose the United States with impunity. In addition, importing oil will continue to play havoc with America’s trading policies: at present, oil imports account for more than one third of the trade deficit, to the tune of $320 billion.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:35 pmDo you think any military action is off the table?
Comment by Kevin
No. It should not be the first option. It should be way down the list.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:39 pmKevin,
And until that day happens, it’s in America’s interest, as well as the WHOLE FRIGGEN world, to work towards peace, and disarming EVERY country of WMD.. don’t you agree?
And should that day ever happen, one of our many subs will surface somewhere from the seas and oceans we patrol and turn Iran into a sheet of glass.. They take out a city, we wipe out their entire nation, fair trade eh?
One reason why USSR and USA never “went nukular” was both sides were thankfully smart enough to realize even a small nukular war would destroy the planet for all humans.
But it’s more fun to be a bed wetting crybaby isnt it Kevin?
Does your mom still tuck you in and read you stories from the Bible?
November 15th, 2006 at 3:40 pmKevin, you’re a very frightened individual. How ’bout this one…
November 15th, 2006 at 3:40 pmOMG, KEVIN SCARES ME, NUKE HIM!
I would love the US to be Oil independent. Let’s start drilling off the cost of Florida and California. We use our own oil till we come up with an acceptable alternative.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:45 pmnever said it should.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:48 pmKevin,
Serious question: Since Iran feels threatened by the US, should they have the right to Pre-Emptively strike us? Why or why not?
November 15th, 2006 at 3:52 pmKev,
November 15th, 2006 at 4:01 pmUntil you answer #49, please, GO AWAY.
KKKarl needs you to rub one out for him anyway.
Answer the question, BOY, or you’re toast here.
Honestly, my thoughts about war is simple. The United States should not attack anyone unless they attack us first or attack one of our allies. And we should think twice about getting involved with an allies war if the ally got into it by attacking first.
All the Neocons want to paint this war like World War II. There are some key differences.
We stayed out of World War II except for supplying aid to our friends even though our ships were being sunk by German U-Boats. We didn’t get involved until we were attacked directly. For those of you (I’m looking at Kevin as I type this) who don’t know your history, the US declared war on Japan after Japan attacked our Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, and then we declared war against the rest of the Axis when they declared war on us. Yes, this means we can be played, but we’ll be in a position of strength and honor, but I’ll come back to this.
In the case of the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq (two seperate conflicts!!!), you can see a big difference. Afghanistan is a front on the war on Terror, in fact, IMO, it’s the main front. We gave the Taliban every chance to avert this war. I respected Bush for his handling of the opening moves of the Afghan war. He did exactly what I would have. “Give us the bastard who hit us, or we’re going to come in, smash you idiots all up in the process, and take him.” He then waited and when the Taliban indicated through words and actions that they would like to take their chances with being smashed, we happily obliged them.
But then Bush did something stupid. Instead of continuing the war in Afghanistan, showing all Islam countries that we finish what we start and only strike out at those who struck us, Bush got this stupid notion that he’d go and ‘finish what his father started in Iraq’ with ‘blessings from God’. I don’t dare profess to know the Mind of God, but I suspect that the voice whispering in his ear didn’t come from On High…but instead from a much warmer, deeper, and darker place. What’s worse, the only thing that Iraq was verifiably guilty of was giving the US lip. You know what the accepted sanction for that is? ECONOMIC sanctions. But no, we were told Saddam was developing ‘WMD’, an idiotic term pushed day and night by our compliant media. And you know what? People like Keven bought this bull hook, line, and sinker. What’s worse is that now, after we’ve seen that we were wrong about the WMDs, and find ourselves stuck between a rock and a hard place with our involvement in Iraq, the idiots Kevin idiolizes are now whispering of hitting Iran. Hey, geniuses, what about the OTHER two Wars you’re in?!
Kevin, you and your ilk have nothing to say in this whole matter. At least, you’ll have nothing to say until you turn your asses around, get BACK in Afghanistan, FINISH what you started, and catch the jerk that struck us back in 2001. Osama bin Laden. Remember him?
In closing, if I were President of the US, this is how I’d put it.
“Good morning, Planet Earth. Small nations feel big and bad now that they’ve build a handful of nukes. I’d like to remind everyone we share this world with that the United States is still a Superpower. Korea, you may have detonated a sub-kiloton nuke, but that’s one of a handful you can cook up. Iran, you claim you’re making radiologicals for peaceful purposes. Pakistan, India, Israel, you all have a handful of your own. Let me remind you that we have more nukes than all of you put together. For fourty years, we stood face to face with the Soviet Union. Don’t think that your handful of nukes will sway us. If you try to bluf with them, you will lose. Heaven help you if you dare use them. We have nuclear weapons in the megaton range. We have some pretty big conventional explosives too, ones we can send through your chimney. Would you like to find out about them? Attack us or one of our friends, and we’ll be very glad to show you our bombs. Just ask the Taliban…that is if you can find them. We can disagree. We can even shout at each other. But the United States won’t be the one to start the shooting war, but you better pray to whatever diety you worship, because by God, we will FINISH whatever you decide to start.”
(Of course, I’d have to clean up Bush’s foulups first, and I think I’d have to be an immortal to accomplish THAT…)
November 15th, 2006 at 4:04 pmHistory has shown us that pre-emptive strikes are not staged with pre-planning of it’s aftermath. So after we hit them before they hit us what next?
November 15th, 2006 at 4:05 pm49 and 50
I asked Kevin a similar question in #38 about a half hour ago – no response, just ignored. Another “I like toast” troll.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:09 pmLil Kevin,
November 15th, 2006 at 4:10 pmIt’s a known fact that you requested a hidden weapon permit. Since it’s also a known fact that you intend to do some sort of damage with said weapon once the permit is granted, can I come over, totally destroy your house, smack around your wife and kids, and kick your dog? All before you even get “the gun”
It’s considered pre emptive, ya know
June – “Since Iran feels threatened by the US, should they have the right to Pre-Emptively strike us? Why or why not?”
Bravo!! Very, very good question!
November 15th, 2006 at 4:13 pmand Bravo to you too PLC!
November 15th, 2006 at 4:14 pmI’d be much more supportive of our attempts to get rid of nuclear weapons if we didn’t also have nukes to destroy the world. It is arrogant of us to demand Iran and North Korea get rid of their nuclear weapons if we won’t get rid of ours. They are a sovereign country and a member of the United Nations. You can’t have it both ways. They are either entitled to run their country the way they want (including building nuclear weapons) or they aren’t. If we’re that certain that they’re going to nuke someone, then we should be drawing up plans for an invasion… not just us, but the rest of the western world too.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:16 pmCountless wars have been avoided by making the soldiers stay behind their borders while the diplomats settle the matter. If each side feels it perfectly ok to be the first to strike (it certainly gives one an advantage militarily), there will be no negotiation. Preemptive policies like Bush’s and Hitler’s do not solve things, they make them worse. We have had SOOOO much proof of that, but we also have proof that Bush doesn’t care about truth, justice, or rational foreign policy.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:17 pmHe may attack Iran preemptively because he is the biggest fool on the international stage. I hope and pray that the first person to die would be the man who orders the attack.
Kevin,
Serious question: Since Iran feels threatened by the US, should they have the right to Pre-Emptively strike us? Why or why not?
Comment by June — November 15, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
November 15th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
I agree with comment #7. This is Christian terrorism by false christians. Jesus would not do a pre-emptive strike. Didn’t we just have an election where we said no to the false christians?
Who will fight the war Mr. Bush? Will your daughters do what you would not and join the military? Will Mary Cheney join? Will Sean Hannity join up? Please take Ann Coulter with you when you go off to the war.
I’ll not send any of my five children to your war Mr. Bush and I am a Navy veteran.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:20 pmwhy not lets attack Angola, El Salvador, Fiji, Palau, Bhutan and a few others just in case they might some day pose a threat?
Comment by Craig
mmm…Craig, I liked your post but…Angola and El Salvador were already attacked by the US.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:21 pm600,000 plus Iraqis have paid with their lives for the USA’s lesson in why pre-emptive military action is the work of fools and/or warmongers. Most civilized people are able to know why pre-emption is an asinine military strategy through common sense and do not require that others be murdered in order to learn it. The USA should be ashamed and I hope that the results of your election are a reflection of that humility.
If americans retain any of the honor or dignity that they once had, they will remove “pre-emptive” from their military vocabulary and never again allow such a strategy to even be considered. It is unfathomable how such can be raised for discussion yet again, especially with the results of your last endeavor still causing the blood of innocents to flow like rivers into the sand.
For the professed “home of the brave”, the USA sure harbors an inordinate amount of fear and cowardice. You all need to work on that so that “folks” like your Kevin do not gain access to your insane armory.
Peace.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:21 pmjune/kevin,
the answer is ‘yes’…the islamic republic of iran is sovereign and they do face a tremendous threat from the bush crime family and their pre-emptive pose…
there is an excellent article in american conservative about this…
an excerpt:
November 15th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Every few weeks, for the past year or so, another story comes out about a planned strike against Iran.
It’s all just a bunch of BS brinksmanship designed to intimidate Iran.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:26 pmTo my knowledge Iran has not stated that it intends to attack the U.S. while the U.S. has repeatedly talked of doing so.
What’s your point again Kevin?
November 15th, 2006 at 4:27 pmSo the plan is waiting for Iran to strike first. Let’s hope the body count is low.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:32 pmIf I say I’m going to hit someone in the face, should that person wait till I hit them in the face before they do something? …Comment by Kevin
Your option 1: Do nothing
Your option 2: Hit first
Option 3: Wait until the person begins to actually swing, then strike
Option 4: Ask yourself and the other person why they are angry at you and
want to hit you
Option 5: Respond with words to words, even if only a warning that a physical strike by the person will result in you striking back HARDER
More options could be generated, depending on the actual situation. The point is, there are more than the first two options you offer.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:32 pmmargaret, kevin,
iran has never said they intend to attack the usa–but, they have said, and any rational person would agree, that they have a right to defend themselves from the aggressions of the bush crime family. especially so with the announcement last year of the bush pre-emptive attack nonsense.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:32 pmIf I say I’m going to hit someone in the face, should that person wait till I hit them in the face before they do something? …Comment by Kevin
Wait till they cock their arm and ball their fist, then kick em in the crotch.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:35 pmSo the plan is waiting for Iran to strike first. Let’s hope the body count is low.
and, the plan in iran is to wait for the usa to strike first and hope the body count is low???
what is more likely? bush the war-criminal and madman expanding his religious extremism to iran, or iran bombing the usa? which country has occupied, murdered, invaded, and killed more people in the past six years?? which country has made pre-emptivism a part of its stated public policy??
and, by your reasoning, we ought to attack iran, north korea, pakistan, india, israel, china, and russia as well… good luck with that one!
November 15th, 2006 at 4:37 pmLet’s hope the body count is low.
Comment by Kevin
So far 600,000, Kev. But thanks for showing some remorse.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:37 pmThere isn’t yet a shred of evidence that Iran built or building nuclear weapons,that is according to the IAEA inspection teams who are monitoring around the clock what Iran producing from cameras to sampling.If we waited after what the IAEA inspection team tell us about Saddam we would not have invaded Iraq..because they questioned and found the Niger story was not accurate,they found no WMDS in Iraq. We went to war….the goals changed from toppling Saddam to free the Iraqis to democracy in the Arab world to democray in the Moslem world.The reality is none of that was accomplished. Here now the same voices calling now again for another attack on a bigger country,more powerful and a sister of the majorities of Iraqis in their Shiite, faith using the same reasons..the WMDS again.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:38 pmThe problem with Bush and his supporters is that they have NO cultural empathy. They can’t put themselves in other culture’s shoes and recognize how the US rhetoric and historical actions may be perceived as a threat to those other cultures. They don’t see how the US’s saber rattling is a cause of increased armament by other countries.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:39 pmIran, despite his fanatic president and Muslim religious culture, have shown signs of open dialogue with the US. There is even a letter signed by the Iranian President which Bush decided not read. (probably still too busy trying to understand My Pet Goat).
November 15th, 2006 at 4:39 pmMy God, it’s hard to have a discourse with Kevin.
When did Iran threaten to attack us?
Stop making up lies to further your fear-filled agenda.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:40 pmIf Iran is attacked, that only means General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and GE designed another war toy so the possible buyers can look at it in action.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:45 pmthe radical extremists that want to invade iran have no argument to make, DNFP–that may explain his early departure. but, there is a problem with posting today, so, he may have just given up on the project…
//about 30 per cent of my posts make it through//
November 15th, 2006 at 4:46 pmWe have got to impeach this guy before he sends our military into yet another undeclared war that will start a chain reaction in the middle east. We strike Iran, they and Syria strike Israel, Iran overruns Iraq, and we’re yet again stuck in the middle, then North Korea nukes us in the name of pre-emptive war and despite all this and W’s misguided sense of his destiny, Jesus does NOT come to save anyone.
This is insanity.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:49 pmjames,
so if we bully another country and their rulers say, “hey! we feel bullied by you so, just so you know, we plan to defend ourselves if you attack” so that gives us an excuse to attack them? because they stated that they’re going to defend themselves if we do?
not getting the logic
November 15th, 2006 at 4:50 pmHey jackwad, you ever seen a nuclear bomb? They are frickin’ huge.
“Hey you, what’s that under your shirt”
“Nothing”
Stop frickin’ wetting your bed and learn a thing or two.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:50 pmThere is even a letter signed by the Iranian President which Bush decided not read. …Comment by Juan C
This reminds me of the two letters received by JFK’s administration during the Cuban Missle Crisis. JFK and RFK chose to respond to the letter that offered a hope of resolution, opening the way to a way out of the crisis.
The Bush Administration should have responded to the letter from the Iranian President, no matter how crazy it may have appeared. A dialogue could have opened and diplomatic resolution might have been found as a result. But, no, Bush had to be the Super Codpiece once again.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:51 pmFriggin’ chicken little.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:52 pmmargaret,
apparently that is the case, if people such as kevin are in charge…that is why it so dangerous to have extremists such as bush unbridled in the world…
November 15th, 2006 at 4:55 pmThis would be enought to change my mind, and go ahead and impeach the crazy fool.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:56 pmjames,
probably should have addressed my last comment to Kevin. I’m so riled up I can’t even type right!
If they (and by “they” I mean the U.S. or Israel) bomb Iran I just don’t know what I’ll do. Can’t take much more of this crap!
and btw James, thanks for your action points the other day. You’re a feisty one and I appreciate that as well as your eloquence.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:57 pmit would fit in a truck. Like the first bomb at the WTC.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:58 pmBut, no, Bush had to be the Super Codpiece once again.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) —
Bush has his agenda. His campaigns were financed by War companies, so he has to fulfill their desires…thats what keeps US economy going, we all know that. However, one thing are corporations and other entirely different are the people. So how can we convince 300 million people to engage in a war. Against who? And why? Bush and his team or better said…the Team and its Bush bet for the worse of people: ignorance, fear and low self-esteem. And there you go…you have a war.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:58 pmI’m sure they feel they do. It’s not a question about who has a right.
Yes, it is.
They have stated repeatedly they want to wipe Israel off the map.
No, rightwingers have stated it repeatedly. Amadinijad said it once and unless you happen to speak Farsi, how do you actually know that he wasn’t just talking about a drawn 2D map? Maybe the “change” to the map that he wants to make is to write it as “Palestine” instead of “Israel”. You really don’t know, but you seem happy to let the talking heads give you your talking points.
They have been less than friendly with the US.
And?
If I say I’m going to hit someone in the face, should that person wait till I hit them in the face before they do something?
Which again brings us back to my original question to you because the Bush Administration (supposedly representing the American people) are the one’s threatening violence, not Iran.
I am not apposed to talking and using diplomacy.
The Bush Administration is opposed to diplomacy and you are supporting them.
But taking military options off the table would be suicide
I would say that having only military options on the table would be suicide on a much larger scale.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:58 pmIsreal is a seperate country just like Iran. Separate from the US. Isreal has the most firepower in the Middle East. Can’t Isreal defend itself against a strike? I would say yes. Why do we have to defend Isreal?
November 15th, 2006 at 4:59 pmThis is Bush’s way of asking for a helpful intervention, like an alcoholic always getting in trouble, its a cry for help. He subconsciously wants to be impeached, he’s tired of chimpin’, especially now that the party is over.
November 15th, 2006 at 5:04 pmIMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS! IMPEACH THE BUGGERS!
November 15th, 2006 at 5:07 pmthanks margaret. it is more likely that israel will bomb them and use as a pretext an alleged aggression by iran–possibly israel will drop a bomb somewhere safe and say that they have proof it was an iranian bomb, or some such scenario… olmert wasn’t here yesterday because he like the fish-sticks at the whitehouse…
june,
They have stated repeatedly they want to wipe Israel off the map.
No, rightwingers have stated it repeatedly. Amadinijad said it once and unless you happen to speak Farsi, how do you actually know that he wasn’t just talking about a drawn 2D map?
ahmanejad was a high-school teacher and he often tells the story about having a young student look at an old map from the 1940s that does not have israel on it and the student wonders why… he also has stated that israel was placed where it currently is as a result of european guilt and has suggested that if the guilt remains, perhaps they can move israel to some part of europe instead. not everyone on the planet believes that, as has been stated yesterday in the news, god’s foreign policy is to defend israel…
November 15th, 2006 at 5:13 pmJust remember; as long as we have a volunteer army, if Bush pushes too far, the army itself might resign in protest. They already have to offer bonuses up the wazoo to keep people re-enlisting. Another war might very well be the breaking point. I don’t think we’ll invade Iran, but I can see a cruise missile or air strike on what we THINK MIGHT be a launch site or reactor or reasearch facility. Not saying it’s better. I’m just sayin.
Another thing is… We have a LOT of troops, and they aren’t all in Iraq or in the States. Has anyone asked where the rest of them are? The reason we’re so short right now is that they’re spread out all over the globe. If we did need more troops for something the government tried to pass off as “vital to national security” a few of our other allies might see our people going back home to take care of the US or being shipped to the meat-grinder. If we start to see a major reorganization of our troops abroad, THEN we can start getting worried about another war.
On the other hand, if we strike Iran, I don’t think they’ll have any qualms about marching into Iraq without even a please or thankyou, and there won’t be a damned thing we can do about it unless WE want to use nukes.
November 15th, 2006 at 5:18 pmRe: Impeach the Buggers
Maybe if each of the BushCo group had 72 virgins, they’d be too busy to start wars. Just a thought.
November 15th, 2006 at 5:20 pmShould the White House pursue the insanity of a preemptive strike in Iran, whether through their own actions or as the result of Israel’s actions, I believe there will be a reaction in the streets of America the likes of which have not been seen before.
November 15th, 2006 at 5:20 pmBush is hell-bent to follow the footsteps of Hitler. “If we can not win this war, we we drag half the world into the abyss with us.”
November 15th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Martial Law anyone?
November 15th, 2006 at 5:28 pmSwordsbane,
I really hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there has been an ongoing “reorganization” of your troops abroad. If you really want to know the truth then grab a world map and take a look at where you have troops right now-Afghanistan and Iraq. Look at what is directly in between those two countries.
Then, look at where you have another substantial amount of “troops”, Saudi Arabia. Look directly to the west of Saudi Arabia, across the Persian Gulf and tell me what you see.
And then speaking of the Persian Gulf, do a google search as to where a sizeable amount of your navy is right now.
Is it becoming clear?
Are you worried? You better be.
May peace be with us all.
November 15th, 2006 at 5:32 pmFirst of all, even if Iran has designs to build a nuclear weapon, according to every expert in the field, they are at a minimum of five years (probably closer to 10) from being able to enrich fissile material which is of suitable quality to be used in a nuclear weapon. This is hardly a pressing issue for us as a nation.
Secondly, as someone mentioned above, according to the IAEA who is monitoring their enrichment program and other experts, there is NO evidence to suggest that the Iranians have taken steps to develop a weapons program.
Thirdly, Iran is a signor of the nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. Under the tenets of the treaty, they are allowed to enrich uranium provided that they use it solely for peaceful purposes and allow monitoring of their program by the IAEA (which they have complied with). To provide a little perspective here, we just sealed a deal to provide India with nuclear technology after they have already developed illicit nuclear weapons and have still not signed the NPT. Why India and not Iran? Why Israel (another rogue nuclear state) and not Iran?
Fourthly, President Ahmadhinajhad has said several very inflammatory things (particularly regarding Israel) but Iran has taken NO steps to ramp up military activity or to actually act in any way on his rhetoric. This man has limited power within his own government and his sabre-rattling rhetoric is simply a way for him to appear more powerful among his people (much like Bush’s).
Lastly and most importantly, I would suggest that everyone take a look at google earth. Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq and has not suffered under 10 years of sanctions. In fact, our little debacle in Iraq has led to an influx of cash for the mullahs due to the rise in oil cost. They are well armed, well trained and have a LARGE military. The ONLY way we could hope to even think about “winning” a military engagement in Iran would be to use nuclear weapons. This, as every military advisor worth a shit has said, is simply not acceptable because of the potential blowback (a military term quite obviously lost on the Bush misadministration).
November 15th, 2006 at 5:32 pmSwordsbane,
Correction: Make that to the “east” of Saudi Arabia. Sorry about that, I had my map upside down. My apologies to the folks up-over in Australia.
Peace.
November 15th, 2006 at 5:41 pmit would fit in a truck. Like the first bomb at the WTC.
Comment by Kevin — November 15, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
The first bomb at the WTC was not nuclear. It was not even a “dirty” bomb.
Say what you will about the Iranian leadership. They are not stupid, and they are certainly not suicidal.
Should an attack on the US lead back to them, they know they are no match for the US military. That is not a secret. Not even China, with a much larger military force, is even dreaming about matching the US militarily.
Finally, Iran is years away from having a nuclear bomb, assuming they started building the infrastructure towards that end. Which is something they are not doing.
November 15th, 2006 at 5:51 pmOnly when our country is bankrupt and destitute will Bush feel like the Mission has been Accomplished.
Hey all you right wing whackos, you’d better wake up before our country sinks to 3rd world status! You idiots must think that our country has INFINITE money. Get ready to trade your Hummer in for a used Pinto. Oh, and you’d better make sure you have a wheel barrow to take money to the grocery store to buy bread. At that point, China will say “Check” and “Mate”
November 15th, 2006 at 5:57 pmOnce Bush wipes out Iran and rebuilds it, then Iraq will become a cake walk and then Afghanistan will welcome us as liberators.
The only solution is Impeachment of the warmongering nut case.
November 15th, 2006 at 6:41 pmPre-emption is what got this country into it’s present jam….it’s the tool of imperialism and cannot continue. If imperialistic conquest was the reason for going to war, it would have NEVER been approved. What’s this guy drinking?
November 15th, 2006 at 6:50 pmFEAR MONGERING AT IT’S FINEST, FOLKS! IT DOESN’T GET ANY MORE TRANSPARENT THAN THIS…..WHAT BUFFOONS.
November 15th, 2006 at 6:52 pm[Ahmadinejad] has suggested that if the guilt remains, perhaps they can move israel to some part of europe instead.
Comment by james risser — November 15, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
President Ahmadhinajhad has said several very inflammatory things (particularly regarding Israel)
Comment by green917 — November 15, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
Regarding Israel, what Ahmadinejad actually said was “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time”. When Ahmadinejad said that, he was quoting an old speech by former Ayatollah Khomeini that the Ayatollah delivered some 20 years ago, during the Reagan administration, and he wasn’t talking about tanks.
Now, when the Ayatollah said it, it didn’t make front page, and didn’t cause anybody to call for action against Iran.
But let Juan Cole explain the whole thing to you. He says it much better than I could.
November 15th, 2006 at 7:09 pmHow amazingly stupid Bush appears to be (was there ever any doubt?) His policies have pushed Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, seemingly contrary to what the Administration sought. I write “seemingly” because with all of the duplicity and underhandedness in this Administration one never knows if perhaps they may have actually wanted this to happen (heaven forbid).
November 15th, 2006 at 7:47 pmOne paranoid theory that shouldn’t be ruled out: the Administration’s trying to provoke Iran into starting something by issuing threatening statements about preemption, etc.. Just screw up the tension to the point where the Iranians launch missiles at US ships in the Gulf–after all, mistakes of this kind have been made before in that part of the world. But Bush would have the perfect pretext for another war: innocent unassuming US Navy task forces just going about their business in the Persian Gulf suddenly and treacherously attacked by the bloodthirsty Iranians.
November 15th, 2006 at 9:43 pmShades of Tonkin Gulf.
The Head of the Iran group has a code name: fastball.
I see the Intervention by the Bush Family operatives in thier effort to make Jr. live in the real world did not work.
November 15th, 2006 at 10:37 pmWar is the opiate of the masses. The public is emerging from the last stupor, so it is time for a bigger, better war, one that is much more engaging. One that is more costly in terms of life and liberty. See link below.
November 15th, 2006 at 10:47 pmGeorge W Bush’s fate is sealed unless he can pull off some really big final curtain performance. As it stands, at present, he will need to remain sequestered and heavily guarded in the USA for the rest of his life or else he will end up being imprisoned for his crimes. So he is looking for a way out of his predicument?
He needs a monumental action. The over throw of some menacing power by using the most hidious new tech weapons he can think of. He will need to fly into the fire in his super duper space thingy and zappooooy a whole bunch of guys. In the inferno he will wave his three pronged fork to signal his invincibility as he jumps from hot patch to hot patch in his head to toe red jump suit. As he flashs his grimacing smirk his servants will place him in his white long sleeved suit. As he is carried away he will laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh. He will be placed in his cell and he will laugh and laugh and laugh. He will live a long life enhanced by drug cocktails. His mind will be full of memories of when he was the red suited fork carrying guy they all called “the red suited fork carrying guy.”
November 16th, 2006 at 12:03 amPre-emption, pre-ejaculation. Same thing.
November 16th, 2006 at 2:23 amCock Mommy Loves Cock Cocks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 8:26 amGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 10:50 pmHouse Party Planning
I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:33 amBad Credit Car Loans
Auto loans are usually users that choose immediate cash and botherless steps .
April 1st, 2008 at 11:13 amCock Dog Dick In Pussy Sucking Dick
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:27 amCock Massive Cocks Cumshots Big Gay Cock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 8:16 am