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!!
Post by mulcherry0420 on Oct 1, 2007 20:49:22 GMT -5
I am currently employed at Rotek inc. We produce bearings for large machines. Our usual order for tank bearings are about 8,000 per month. Throughout July, August, September, and October the order was "bumped" up to around 22,000 in July, 24,400 August, September and October have had orders for 32,100 each month. What does that tell you about Bush's plans....
I am currently employed at Rotek inc. We produce bearings for large machines. Our usual order for tank bearings are about 8,000 per month. Throughout July, August, September, and October the order was "bumped" up to around 22,000 in July, 24,400 August, September and October have had orders for 32,100 each month. What does that tell you about Bush's plans....
I understand that yes, war is good for business. War, however, is not good for human lives. Going to war to boost an economy or secure resources is unacceptable to me.
I think armies should go back to using swords. No bombs, no guns, no GPS. Maybe then we'd think before we attacked?
Edit: and Meddle is a frickin' awesome album.. y'know I think I may grab some corn and see what I did with the record..
Last Edit: Oct 1, 2007 21:09:34 GMT -5 by wooz - Back to Top
Pro-western or not, the Iranian population will not view us favorably if we invade. People always prefer their own bad government to a good government imposed by an outside force. (I'd fight any country who tried to depose Bush by force even though I think he's the most dangerous and damaging president in history.)
Bush set Iran's pro-western movement back 20 years with his "axis of evil" speech. An invasion would be MUCH worse and further fortify the radical hardliners.
Some thought Iraqis would greet us as liberators. No, there will be no jubilant masses throwing flowers and candy at us in Iran either.
Don't forget that you live in the U.S. Quality of life here is a lot better that most places around the globe. There's a lotta people in a lotta countries that wouldn't mind seeing their governments overthrown, whether by internal or external means.
I don't agree that Bush's axis of evil speech really had that big of an impact on them because like I said, Iranians as a whole are a lot more educated and knowledgable of the rest of the world than the populations of most countries in that region of the world.
But a lot of Iraqis did in fact give us a warm reception during the initial invasion - though we apparently wore out our welcome pretty quick. Most of the civilian population was very welcoming to us when we were coming through...Except for Nasiriyah - they were very uneasy about having Americans come through after what happened during Desert Storm, and I can't say that I blame them. We even had one village cook us this giant feast, I don't know what anything was, but I know that it made me poop every half hour for about 3 days straight.
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Oct 2, 2007 16:27:59 GMT -5
badfish said:
Don't forget that you live in the U.S. Quality of life here is a lot better that most places around the globe. There's a lotta people in a lotta countries that wouldn't mind seeing their governments overthrown, whether by internal or external means.
I don't agree that Bush's axis of evil speech really had that big of an impact on them because like I said, Iranians as a whole are a lot more educated and knowledgable of the rest of the world than the populations of most countries in that region of the world.
But a lot of Iraqis did in fact give us a warm reception during the initial invasion - though we apparently wore out our welcome pretty quick. Most of the civilian population was very welcoming to us when we were coming through...Except for Nasiriyah - they were very uneasy about having Americans come through after what happened during Desert Storm, and I can't say that I blame them. We even had one village cook us this giant feast, I don't know what anything was, but I know that it made me poop every half hour for about 3 days straight.
I seriously doubt the Iranians are sitting around wishing the US would bomb them back to the stone age and depose their President, even if they dont like him. The Iranians in the US I know do not like Ahmadinejad, but they don't want the US invading their country. As for the Axis of evil speech, again, Iranians I know thought it was a slap in the face to their people, esp since the speech implicated the whole nation, not just the fundamentalist government.
I must say I'm really confused. You concur that Iraq was a botched mishap, yet you think we should continue with the invasion of other countries and don't think we'd botch those, too? Of course, you obviously enlisted for Iraq at some point, so I guess you think its a good idea to go stomping around soverign nations imposing vague notions of "democracy" and "freedom" at gunpoint, and assume the populace wants that. I guess that's why recent polls of Iraqis are indiating they'd rather have kept Saddam than have the situation they're dealing with now.
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
Don't forget that you live in the U.S. Quality of life here is a lot better that most places around the globe. There's a lotta people in a lotta countries that wouldn't mind seeing their governments overthrown, whether by internal or external means.
I don't agree that Bush's axis of evil speech really had that big of an impact on them because like I said, Iranians as a whole are a lot more educated and knowledgable of the rest of the world than the populations of most countries in that region of the world.
But a lot of Iraqis did in fact give us a warm reception during the initial invasion - though we apparently wore out our welcome pretty quick. Most of the civilian population was very welcoming to us when we were coming through...Except for Nasiriyah - they were very uneasy about having Americans come through after what happened during Desert Storm, and I can't say that I blame them. We even had one village cook us this giant feast, I don't know what anything was, but I know that it made me poop every half hour for about 3 days straight.
I seriously doubt the Iranians are sitting around wishing the US would bomb them back to the stone age and depose their President, even if they dont like him. The Iranians in the US I know do not like Ahmadinejad, but they don't want the US invading their country. As for the Axis of evil speech, again, Iranians I know thought it was a slap in the face to their people, esp since the speech implicated the whole nation, not just the fundamentalist government.
I must say I'm really confused. You concur that Iraq was a botched mishap, yet you think we should continue with the invasion of other countries and don't think we'd botch those, too? Of course, you obviously enlisted for Iraq at some point, so I guess you think its a good idea to go stomping around soverign nations imposing vague notions of "democracy" and "freedom" at gunpoint, and assume the populace wants that. I guess that's why recent polls of Iraqis are indiating they'd rather have kept Saddam than have the situation they're dealing with now.
First, please stop putting words into my mouth. Not once did I say that Iranians are "sitting around waiting for us to bomb them back to the stone age." I said nothing even remotely similar to that.
As for the axis of evil speech, I think it's very clear that that was a condemnation of the government, not the Iranian people. Agree to disagree, I guess.
Also, never did I say that I think we should "continue with the invasion of other countries." In fact, if you go back to very first post in this thread you'll see where I say "And know that I'm in now way advocating a war with Iran" It's right there, word for word.
No on to you...It's pretty obvious that you know absolutely nothing about me yet have no problem jumping to conclusions like that I "obviously enlisted for Iraq at some point, so I guess you think its a good idea to go stomping around soverign nations imposing vague notions of "democracy" and "freedom" at gunpoint, and assume the populace wants that."
I enlisted long before the war in Iraq and even before the war in Afghanistan.
Again, I ask you to drop the attitude and hostility here just because you don't like what I'm saying. If you want to have a discussion I'm all for it, but if you want to make assumptions and take little potshots at me then find yourself another clown. I'm a lot of things to a lot of people, but an idiot to no one.
Getting back to the original question, I think an invasion of Iran is extremely unlikely. It is true we could defeat them in a conventional war fairly quickly. An extended occupation is a completely different matter. We as a country just do not have the will or the manpower for an occupation. Not to mention a lack of internatonal support for such an action
Taking out Iran's nuclear facilities is a definite possibility. If it becomes apparent that Iran is getting close to nuclear weapon capability. We will have no other choice but to destroy their facilities. A nuclear armed Iran is in no way acceptable
The argument has now changed from attacking nuclear facilities to attacking Republican Guard sites. The Congress just passed a resolution declaring them terrorists (Thanks Dems for the unprecedented step of declaring a nation's military as a terrorist group.) The Bush Adm. has shorten the "attack list" from 1000 sites to ~200 and even approach British officials to guage their support for an immediate attack.
We'd obviously attack nuclear sites but apparently also hundreds of military sites. How do we expect Iran to react to such attacks? Could this be contained to just an air war? Bush thinks so. And he has said that he cannot see any way he'd leave this situation for a Democratic president to handle.
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Oct 3, 2007 11:12:10 GMT -5
You know, I'm not so sure Iran is persuing a nuclear weapon. This is the same intelligence network that brought us phony yellow cake and WMD bunkers in Iraq that never existed, and we all know where that got us. The ends of an Iran invasion will likely mirror what happened in Iraq. Why should the means be any different? I'm also not so sure Iran has been a sponser of Iraqi insurgents. It all seems to fit the neocons' plan too perfectly. In a couple of years we'll be hearing how syria has been persuing WMDs and helping sponser insurgency in Iran, so we have no choice but to invade.
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
alyroo
Bonnafunky Dirtyroo Princess of Blinkytown and moonpie expert
You know, I'm not so sure Iran is persuing a nuclear weapon. This is the same intelligence network that brought us phony yellow cake and WMD bunkers in Iraq that never existed, and we all know where that got us. The ends of an Iran invasion will likely mirror what happened in Iraq. Why should the means be any different? I'm also not so sure Iran has been a sponser of Iraqi insurgents. It all seems to fit the neocons' plan too perfectly. In a couple of years we'll be hearing how syria has been persuing WMDs and helping sponser insurgency in Iran, so we have no choice but to invade.
The bunkers did exist, the WMDs did exist, they just ceased to exist by the time we got to them. The yellow cake was a fraud, though. Iran IS a sponsor of Iraqi insurgents, and Syria is already helping insurgency in Iraq.
I don't want another war either, but get your facts straight
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Oct 3, 2007 11:38:25 GMT -5
wooz said:
stallion said:
You know, I'm not so sure Iran is persuing a nuclear weapon. This is the same intelligence network that brought us phony yellow cake and WMD bunkers in Iraq that never existed, and we all know where that got us. The ends of an Iran invasion will likely mirror what happened in Iraq. Why should the means be any different? I'm also not so sure Iran has been a sponser of Iraqi insurgents. It all seems to fit the neocons' plan too perfectly. In a couple of years we'll be hearing how syria has been persuing WMDs and helping sponser insurgency in Iran, so we have no choice but to invade.
The bunkers did exist, the WMDs did exist, they just ceased to exist by the time we got to them. The yellow cake was a fraud, though. Iran IS a sponsor of Iraqi insurgents, and Syria is already helping insurgency in Iraq.
I don't want another war either, but get your facts straight
All I'm saying is these "facts" you seem to have are all coming from the same official Pentagon sources that have already been shown to be liars. And if these WMDs did exist, then where the fuck are they? And don't start about those empty tubes left over from the Iran/Iraq war they dug up after months of embarassment. We knew those were there because we sold them to Iraq years ago, and they showed no signs of being used in 10 years. so before you're so sure your facts are strait, stop and consider the source.
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
Do you know how many bunkers Saddam had in Iraq? How many secret hideouts? The dude was really fond of those.. I mean look at what we've found so far. Its very possible that we haven't found 'em all, or that they(wmds) were sent to another country just as our failed "decapitation missile" or whatever it was hit one of those hideouts.
As for the Pentagon, no, I don't trust them implicitly. But it does fit. Iran doesn't want us in Iraq, nor does Syria. Iranians and Syrians(reported by sources other than American news media) have been captured with Iraqi insurgents. Its a crappy situation.
There are a lot of crooks in the administration and the Pentagon, but there ARE some smart people in our intelligence community, which got a major kick in the ass.
Last Edit: Oct 3, 2007 11:48:30 GMT -5 by wooz - Back to Top
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Oct 3, 2007 11:52:20 GMT -5
I'm not denying that individuals from nearby muslim nations have gone to Iraq to help the fight against America, but that is a lot different than state-sponsoring insurgents. And all the reports of Iranian weapons being used on our troops have come straight from the Pentagon. Yeah, very few in the area want us in Iraq (except Israel), but the "proof" of Syria or Iran sponsering insurgents is tenuous at best.
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
alyroo
Bonnafunky Dirtyroo Princess of Blinkytown and moonpie expert
Do you know how many bunkers Saddam had in Iraq? How many secret hideouts? The dude was really fond of those.. I mean look at what we've found so far. Its very possible that we haven't found 'em all, or that they were sent to another country just as our failed "decapitation missile" or whatever it was hit one of those hideouts.
but the "hideouts" are not large enough to disguise the kinds of weapons the administration said they had. Caches of weapons?... sure... big nasty WMDs?... no
As for the Pentagon, no, I don't trust them implicitly. But it does fit. Iran doesn't want us in Iraq, nor does Syria. Iranians and Syrians(reported by sources other than American news media) have been captured with Iraqi insurgents. Its a crappy situation.
The US going into Iraq and disposing of Saddam is EXACTLY what Iran wanted... now it's a free for all... open to "influences"
There are a lot of crooks in the administration and the Pentagon, but there ARE some smart people in our intelligence community, which got a major kick in the ass.
A certain blonde comes to mind... who know what she and her whole network had going on...
Sorry Wooz but you're just parroting right wing misinformation (I hesitate to say lies.)
Saddam's WMD program was long dead by 2003. Any residual nerve/chemical weapons had long since degraded.(I wouldn't eat it but it was no longer useful as a WMD.) The inspections worked spectacularly. Sure Saddam would have loved to reconstitute them but we had him "locked down."
Of course Syria and Iran are helping the insurgents. So is Saudi Arabia who is funneling more money into Iraq than anyone. It's Shiite/Sunni civil war. But our war plan left more conventional weapons caches laying around than the insurgence could use in 100 years. We thought there'd be no insurgency so we left all Saddams cartridges, shells and explosives unguarded and they were quickly collected by the locals. There's no need for anyone to import expolsives, just expertise and all areas governments and religious organization are participants.
Singling out Iran and Syria is just justifying a political agenda. Everybody's supporting their side. Problem is no one's on our side.
Last Edit: Oct 3, 2007 12:46:26 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
alyroo
Bonnafunky Dirtyroo Princess of Blinkytown and moonpie expert
Let me just say that I don't agree with invading them, that would make matters much worse... I think him having an active program was certainly a lie, and like you said, those weapons would've degraded.. I still don't think he got rid of everything though
I just don't like hearing people say that Iran and Syria are innocent, which you agree they aren't.
I think the truly sad thing is that the Bush administration and the intelligence community have so little credibility any more. When we are warned of a threat we don't know if it is credible or more bullsh*t.
I think the truly sad thing is that the Bush administration and the intelligence community have so little credibility any more. When we are warned of a threat we don't know if it is credible or more bullsh*t.
