Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Friday, the Washington Post reported Bush's authorization of a new, more intensive policy that allows for more stringent measures against Iran. This includes, primarily, the authority to capture or kill Iranian agents active in Iraq, a story Bush and other US officials did not deny. However, the new policy extends far beyond Iraq. The Post reported that the new plan is part of a wider US strategy aimed at destroying Iranian influence from Afghanistan to Lebanon, as well as to hinder Iran's nuclear program. In this context, the plan addresses known terrorist entities within the sphere of Iran's influence, such as Hizbullah.
its meant soley to provoke them. its not like we are asking insurgents and terrorists what country they are from. weve beeen shooting them all along. its so that they can go after iranian targets without guns. all they have to do is peg some false intellignece to them its all part of the propaganda that will build towards an attack on iran. he goes on about how iran cant meddle in the affairs of their neighbors, where they have friends and family because hes the decider and he will decide whats best from the otherside of the world. and if ya dont like it then eat a bomb. and on top of that he refuses to talk to the iranians to reslove any of these issue. just more troops and killings. damn america is scary.
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2007 1:41:13 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
and now here comes the intelligence. 2 years til iran has a nuke. 3000 centrifuges. sounds like wmd, yellow cake and aluminum tubes to me. i cant beleive bush is gonna do this. it will take a terror attack for it to happen. but bush will order another one up so he can execute his plan for the world. id bet my nuts on a major terror attack within the next 4 months. (yes my actual nuts. not my poo ) and he attacks iran over it. maybe israel bombs some iranian sites right before the terror attack so it will be easier to peg on iran. these religous fanatics are doing there best to bring about this armageddon god is always talking about.
iran has a couple hundered thousand intelligence officers and republican guard already in iraq. they are gonna respond to these attacks. and our troops in iraq could pay a heavy price. iran controls iraqs police forces and also controls the powerful shiite militias. its gonna get real ugly over there.
Last Edit: Jan 26, 2007 19:46:38 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
Yeah basically the plan is that after the next major terrorist act we go into Iran - whether there's any connection to them or not. I'd bet we "manufacture" a connection to them though...
Yeah basically the plan is that after the next major terrorist act we go into Iran - whether there's any connection to them or not. I'd bet we "manufacture" a connection to them though...
Where are these plans. And where exactly are the resources to execute them.
You guys sound so paranoid that you're missing the larger point. Iraq and Afghanistan have turned into proxy wars. In Iraq, we're fighting Syrian and Iranian funded insurgents. In Afghanistan, the taliban and al-quaeda have been increasing their presence. The idea that we'd go into a third country seems a bit daft to me given our lack of military strength and the political shit storm that a necessary draft would create.
well i agree. it makes no sense. but bush has his mind made up. and hes the decider. we really have 2 choices. fight iran. or give them iraq. we cant let them have all that oil. and now its up to us to keep them out because we got rid of saddam. i think it dosent make sense to us because we live in reality. to bush it makes sense because its all part of the religous fanatics shceme to bring about the return of christ. bush has said that this is what he believes. and god talks to him. so i think hes set on it. we need to throw his ass in jail.
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2007 20:40:53 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
and if he ties it to a terror attack like the reports say hes planning to do then the draft wont be a problem to get renacted. not to mention if we go after iran then it means diplomacy in the middle east is dead, all the gloves are off and we will unleash israel.
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2007 20:46:48 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
Wow...there's really no point in arguing with you guys. You will throw source after source of speculation without any real context and then spew borderline anti-semitic bullshit. Honestly, you'd think the muslims shit ice cream the way you guys talk about America and Israel.
Wow...there's really no point in arguing with you guys. You will throw source after source of speculation without any real context and then spew borderline anti-semitic bullshit. Honestly, you'd think the muslims nuts ice cream the way you guys talk about America and Israel.
an argument is two sides of an issue being discussed. i guess we should just agree with you. anti-semitic???wtf are you talking about? as for my unleashing israel comment thats not anti-semitic. we do have them on a leash. and they would be a huge ally in any further war against iran if we allow them to participate. which was in response to your questioning the resources to wage another war. i dont think that muslims have a whole lot to do with it. its terrorist at issue. not muslims. maybe you have the issues in regards to other religions. and it appears that everything you said was speculation/opinion. your entitled to that and so is everyone else.
time will tell. we will see whats happening 4 months from now in the world and see whethere its paranoia or not
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2007 22:09:20 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
Wow...there's really no point in arguing with you guys. You will throw source after source of speculation without any real context and then spew borderline anti-semitic bullshit. Honestly, you'd think the muslims nuts ice cream the way you guys talk about America and Israel.
an argument is two sides of an issue being discussed. i guess we should just agree with you. anti-semitic???wtf are you talking about? as for my unleashing israel comment thats not anti-semitic. we do have them on a leash. and they would be a huge ally in any further war against iran if we allow them to participate. which was in response to your questioning the resources to wage another war. i dont think that muslims have a whole lot to do with it. its terrorist at issue. not muslims. maybe you have the issues in regards to other religions. and it appears that everything you said was speculation/opinion. your entitled to that and so is everyone else.
No. An argument is several sides of an issue being discussed. This thread is about your side which, imo, is extreme and built mostly on speculation of WHAT IF.
The assumption we have Israel on a leash is absurd. We have more say with Israel than other countries mainly because we're there most powerful ally, but if we had more say with Israel, there problems with Palestine would have been settled.
As far as the reference to islam, I'm just pointing out the tendency of the far left (which I apologize if I've assumed wrongly that you are a part of) to only see America/Corporations as the sole villain here. Extreme fundamentalist Islam is a very real fucking danger, my friend. Sudan, Indonesia, Afghanistan...if you don't think it's a real issue, then I think you're overlooking a massive part of the conflict in the middle east. And yes, I know its in large part birthed by colonialist actions, but its still a bunch of older 'religious' men taking advantage of poverty to gain military power.
I don't know what the answer is in Iraq. It's pretty damn complex, and I have issues at home to worry about. But I seriously doubt a lame duck president who can't even get the green light from his own party without doubts being raised by even the staunchest conservatives will be able to push a war into Iran, even if he wanted to, which honestly, I don't think he does. All he wants is to turn some of the blame on Iran & Syria for why the Iraqi war's going south. The fact that he's declared war on Iranian operatives is foolish, but probably not for the reasons you're trying to get at.
Have you stopped to think maybe WE have operatives over there, and maybe Bush declaring war on Iranian subterfuge declares war on anybody in Iran with US ties. It's just another dumb move by a president who seems to act with ass more than his head, heart or soul (that he sold to Enron).
if we didnt have israel on a leash they would have bulldozed and fenced off whatever they felt like years ago. and they would strike iranian nuclear sites as they have before. and they would not have been nearly as restrained in the recent conflict with lebanon. they are on our leash because we supplied them with a military and enable their existence in an extremely hostile region.
i agree with you 100%. there are dangerous people intent on killing us. regardless of their reasons they are a very real threat. but if we are fighting this war for the betterment of our nations security then why have we essentially abandoned afghanistan? why not focus on sudan, indonesia, haiti, somalia, etc...? or why dont we focus on pakistan where all of the terroists leaders are, including bin laden? alqueda has powerful connections in pakistani intelligence and other government officials. lets not forget they have nukes. why is bin laden allowed to roam around pakistan making terror plans and trying to get nukes? instead of making a real efoort to get these guys we invade a country that was no threat to us. and and turned into a huge threat to us and a terrorist haven. but there are alot of big business intrests there. our national security has been hurt by this war. tax paying americans are hurt by this war. american service men and women are hurt by this war. iraqis are hurt by this war. it seems to me the only ones who have benfited are alqueda and american mega-business like haliburton and the oil companies. companies that have extraordinary ties with the bush administration that waged this war based on false intelligence at the expense of pursuing those who have attacked us and do present a true threat to us.
i also have no idea what to do over there. we cant pull out and let iran have control over it. it looks like were stuck to me. id say the best solution is to keep enough troops there to defend the oil and bring the rest home. or take out iran. those appear to be the only options imo. and of the 2 i think its easy to see which way bush leans.
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2007 23:03:35 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
There's one solution to this......IMPEACHMENT. The problem is, and I'm sorry to say it, but the Dems don't have the balls to do it. But I think if Bush keeps pushing I think all the Dems will get on board, and some republicans. No one wants another war, at this point. If Bush was stupid enough to do it, and I wouldn't put it past him, the Republicans will be doomed for the next 20 years or so. We barely have the resources for this "troop surge", and look at all the sh!t Bush is getting over that. There's no way he's gonna go into Iran, IMO. He'll get Israel to do our dirty business, if he really wants to go after them.
Post by chicagorooer on Jan 28, 2007 1:54:44 GMT -5
well condisering the prime minister of Iran has called for the total destruction of Israel......He said publicly over and over again he wants this to happen. I think Israel has held themselves back. They could be bombing the living hell out of Iran for for those comments and they would be justified......The reason Iraq is having problems is b.c of Iran and Syria to sick back and ignore this issue is very narrow minded. I have been saying this for awhile now the real WAR WILL BE WITH iRAN.
Dude u kill me u say why don't we go get Bin laden!! Duhh he's in pakistan and if we go invade pakistan to get him. U will be the 1st to say we are imperialist,and are doing it for corporate america and a whole slew of other crap. U can't have it both ways. You can't say Bush should prevent terrorist attacks then when he takes steps whether u aggree or not u say he's doing it all for B.s reasons. Like if another attack happens u will be the 1st to say he didn't do enough but when he does u say he can't do that give terrorist rights and a judge and lawyers. sadaam wa sgiving suicide bomber scash to blow up Irael. By taking out sadaam that has helped our ally Israel....If sadaam was still in power the middle east would be way more dangerous for us and our ally Israel. Dude U just hate Bush period. No matter what he does u just hate him and will say whatever to bash him
We haven't abandaned Afganistan. great progress has been made there and b/c there isn't a bombing in Kabul everyday the media refuses to show the good being done. The left wing media just wants to show all the crap to push there agenda. Why not show any of the good going on b/c ther eis a lot schools,roads,voting,a goverment that has had control for years....they won't show this. That is why u feel afganistan has bene left behin
Post by chicagorooer on Jan 28, 2007 2:00:02 GMT -5
the reason he won't be impeached is b/c it's wrong and all the dems know it. they signed on to this war and have just bashed him to get political gain. Nobody ever ever ever wants war and Irael has the right to take them out if Iran keeps calling for israels destruction....what should they do what to be blown up 1st...
israel hasnt held themselves back. we have held them back.
what corporate intrests are in pakistan?? if we went into pakistan (4 years ago) i would say its justified given the events of 9/11 and the fact that pakistan is providing a safe haven for alqueda. and we dont need to invade. massive bombings and special forces could handle it. like they did iraq. we dont have to stay and control pakistan after we kill terrorists because they dont have the oil we want. and saddam giving money to suicide bombers families in palestine is insignifigant and was something sadaam did when he couldnt control the iraqi people in a secular environmtent. he had to use religion to keep his hold and that was part of that. the real supporters of the bombers in israel is hezbullah. which is iran and lebanon. and yet we go after iraq where theres no threats but billions to be made.
bush isnt doing s.hit. hes a criminal and needs to be impeached. and i dont need another attack to say he hasnt done enough. its obvious to anyone with common sense hes made the situation far worse. and how did taking saddam out help israel? by giving iran, the contry sworn to destroy them, all of that area to control and all of the oil? not to mention the recruiting and propaganda they get out of all this. you cant be serious. if saddam was in power the middle east would be more stable and less of a threat to everyone. including iraqis, who most say had it better under sadaam. now they are more likley to be killed. they dont have basic utilities, etc....
and please do tell me about our great succeses in afghanistan. attacks are greatly on the increase in afghanistan. the taliban has reformed. alqueda is operating freely in both pakistan and afghanistan. the government announced today that they refuse to spray the opium fields, so now the the taliban and alqeda get to rake in over 3 billion dollars of poppy crops. the harvest is in a couple of months.
i dont think we should be telling them to spray crops anyways. either make opium legal so its worth nothing. all the junkies are getting thier heroin anywyas. and if it was legal it wouldnt cost so much so there wouldnt be crime to score it. or we could just enforce our laws and secure our borders here in america. quit invading, polluting, and ruining other countries crops because we cant control our borders or enforce our laws. and securing our borders and enforcing our laws here would also go a great length towards solving our terror problems. again it comes down to greed.
its not just some hatred of bush. its reality man. accept it. or dont. but atleast check to see if what your saying is at all true. even bush admits things arent going well and he screwed up. his own party of conservative jesus freeks is saying it and even activelty trying to stop him. its like pearl jams "jeremy's smoking" you need to look into things before you go saying stuff thats completely inaccurate.
Last Edit: Jan 28, 2007 13:09:13 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
presenting false intelligence to the world (and the dems) to start an illegal war and its wrong to impeach? exposing classified information to harm those who come clean about the false intelligenc and it s wrong to impeach? massive faliure in katrina relief. and faliure to even mention it in the state of the union because its a mess but its not ok to impeach? and i think well saw when katrina hit that new orleans wasnt in the bush union. if that had happend in florida or texas it would have been a whole other story.
there are more but im tired of going over this time and time again with you. hopefully bush will get a blow job so that yall will have an impeachment you can support.
Last Edit: Jan 28, 2007 12:56:19 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
There's more than enough evidence, if the Dems really wanted to go after Bush and impeach him. Just look at the Scooter Libby trial. All sorts of strange workings within the administration are being revealed, through that. I mean there really is a mountain of evidence. I just don't think the Dems want to put the country through that sort of divisive activity. It might wind up being our last resort though, as the final check on the Presidents powers, cause he just wants to keep pushing and pushing. It might be the only way to save this country from something far worse than we're in right now. Now to me that's scarier than another terrorist attack here.
i agree with you. the dems wont do it. they are too worried about how unpatriotic it will seem in a time of war. but its only the republican conservatives that spout that nonsense. i think it would greatly increase the chance of dems getting the preidency if they did impeach him. especially for dems like obama that didnt vote for the war in iraq. but the retarded dems are gonna screw that up too. the dems are just as quick to invade. but atleast they are talking about actual threats like pakistan and saudi arabia. but bush is too busy having thanksgiving dinner with the saudis at the bush ranch and selling his failing businesses to them for outrageous amounts of money to even think about dealing with the country that made up most of the attakers on 9/11. to me its just more proof that we have a one party system and dems and repubs is just smoke and mirrors.
By now you have probably heard about the Bush Administration's secret plan to attack Iran and how US Special Forces units have been operating in the country for some time. Seymour Hersh, the maverick journalist for The New Yorker, broke the story earlier this week.
"The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran's ability to go nuclear. But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work," writes Hersh. "The government consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions, have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership."
It is a scathing indictment. The Bush Administration, which has avoided going through Congress to initiate its covert operations, is conducting this potential invasion much differently than the invasion of Iraq. The reasons may be political in nature. The US public, or at least those who opposed the Iraq war, made it somewhat difficult for Bush to instigate war against Saddam Hussein's regime.
Gathering in the streets, and later on Capitol Hill, they forced a public discussion, carefully scrutinizing Bush's motives. Now that many of Bush's claims about Iraq's WMD program and ties to al-Qaeda have been disproven (though Bush might beg to differ), Bush and company may be struggling to garner sufficient support to justify waging another war with an already strained military.
But the Bush administration may not have to worry about the opposition for round two. After all, the Democrats have long agreed that Iran must be dealt with militarily.
Recently, the Democratic Party's rising "progressive" star Barack Obama said he would favor "surgical" missile strikes against Iran.
As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, "[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?"
He added, "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."
Senator John Kerry echoed this sentiment on May 29, 2004, when he told the Washington Post that the Bush Administration has not "been tough on the [Iran] issue … which is the issue of nuclear weaponry, and again just like I said with North Korea, you have to keep your eye on the target."
Even DNC chair hopeful Howard Dean, allegedly the liberal arm of the Democratic Party, concurs Bush has not been tough enough on Iran. The Forward quotes Dean as saying, "The United States has to ... take a much harder line on Iran and Saudi Arabia because they're funding terrorism."
In fact, while campaigning for president, Dean contended that President Bush had been far too soft on Iran. In a March appearance on CBS' Face The Nation, Dean even went so far as to say that "[President Bush] is beholden to the Saudis and the Iranians."
Foreign Policy expert Stephen Zunes wrote of the Democrats' platform in Foreign Policy in Focus on August 12, 2004:
"One possible target for American forces under a Kerry administration is Iran. The platform implies an American right to such military intervention by stating that 'a nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies.' No concern is expressed, however, about the already-existing nuclear arsenals of Iran's neighbor Pakistan or of nearby Israel. Iran has called for a nuclear-free zone in the region, which the Democrats appear to reject, apparently because it would require America's regional allies to get rid of their nuclear arsenals as well. The Democrats, like the Republicans, believe that instead of pushing for multilateral and verifiable arms control treaties, the United States can effectively impose a kind of nuclear apartheid, unilaterally determining which countries can have nuclear weapons and which countries cannot."
So are we really supposed to believe the Democrats will ever offer up any significant opposition to Bush's military dabbling in Iran?
Not unless by "opposition to" you mean "support for."
Last Edit: Jan 28, 2007 13:35:41 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
No concern is expressed, however, about the already-existing nuclear arsenals of Iran's neighbor Pakistan or of nearby Israel. Iran has called for a nuclear-free zone in the region, which the Democrats appear to reject, apparently because it would require America's regional allies to get rid of their nuclear arsenals as well. The Democrats, like the Republicans, believe that instead of pushing for multilateral and verifiable arms control treaties, the United States can effectively impose a kind of nuclear apartheid, unilaterally determining which countries can have nuclear weapons and which countries cannot."
that paragraph is very interesting to me. we refuse to negotiate. we just want to bully. dems and repubs. i dont understand why we think its our right to run the world and to decide whihc countrys can have our tech and whihc ones cant develop their own tech. it sad that so many americans support these activitiesso that they can have what they intrepret as freedom. its so so sad.
o yeah and dudewheresmyroo you're absoluetly right, why is it fair for us to have nuclear weapons and no one else? i personally think we should lead by example and get rid of all our nuclear weapons asn ask the world to follow peacefully
instaed of killing with the very weapons we are proliferating the destruction of. which path do you choose? peace, or war?
very cool pics. granted you could put together something like that for any country on earth. but its still cool. tom brokaw had a speical in iran a few months ago and they are alot like us. young people hoping for a better, safer future. not a country that wants to run out and start world war 3 or nuclear annihilation. iran realises that they would be completely destroyed if they used nukes. like north korea they are willing to negotiate their nuclear programs if thre is assurances that their enemies will also not have them and they wont be invaded or overthrown. not to mention that bush is creating new "tactical nuclear weapons" designed to be used in conflicts like iran and north korea. but for some reason we see their position as unreasonable. so they want them for security to deter invasions. and i personally dont blame them one bit.
and god forbid they use a clean energy source like nuclear power. they should use all that oil. thats the best way to avoid a nuclear war. let global warming wipe us out first.
Last Edit: Jan 28, 2007 14:05:28 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
) and he attacks iran over it. maybe israel bombs some iranian sites right before the terror attack so it will be easier to peg on iran. these religous fanatics are doing there best to bring about this armageddon god is always talking about.
