Iran's War Of Egos...

[Repo]

It is surprising how again and again people's egos get in the way of good judgment. Saddam refused to back down pretending he had weapons of mass destruction. For his ego the people of Iraq are paying dearly, their country now in chaos...

George W. Bush refused to back down against Saddam and refused to listen to the UN inspectors that they couldn't find Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. For his ego the people of the United States are paying dearly, stuck in a war with no good end in sight. Thousand of American casualties, costing billions of dollars sending the country into deficit with little money to rebuild the Katrina devastated Gulf Coast and with Osama bin Laden still operating. On top of all that there is the matter of Iran that like it or not the U.S. will have to deal with militarily...

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refuses to back down against the United States, the European Union and most of the United Nations. For his ego the people of Iran will pay dearly. President Ahmadinejad wants to build a nuclear weapon. He claims it is Iran's right to have nuclear weapons. He also has said he wants to wipe Israel off of the map. Once you start talking about wiping another country off the map, in the eyes of the world you lose that right to have nuclear capabilities. Sorry Mr. Ahmadinejad it isn't going to happen. The reason it isn't going to happen is once you have nuclear weapons, most people believe Iran would use them on Israel. Doing so would set off a chain reaction that would not only kill millions in Israel and Iran but several countries in the Middle East. That would also damage the flow of oil to countries worldwide including China; that would hurt China's growing economy. China will not let Mr. Ahmadinejad's ego hurt their economy. Iran has missiles that can reach Europe and nobody doubts they wouldn't nuke Europe too. The E.U. isn't going to let one mad man start another world war...

Mr. Ahmadinejad may think the U.S. doesn't have the stomach for another war and therefore would never attack Iran. There are some in the United States that would be against war no matter what the reason. That said President Bush doesn’t really care what the American people think. He has said he doesn't follow the polls. It is probably another one of his lies, he probably cares but he doesn't make his decisions based on polls. But he does usually go to war just before an election and guess what? There is a congressional election coming up this November. Mr. Ahmadinejad may want to check his ego and his nuclear ambitions because there are plenty of troops in Iraq that could easily move into Iran and overthrow his government in a moments notice. The one thing about President Bush is he doesn't bluff. Bush isn't going to back down against Ahmadinejad. Bush has a pretty big ego. If Ahmadinejad has as big an ego as Bush has my guess is next fall he will be sharing a cell with Saddam. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, there will be a nuclear war, Ahmadinejad has said he wants to wipe Israel off of the map and I believe him. That means the only option is to take him out before Iran gets nuclear weapons. It also is a way for the U.S. to get out of Iraq. You know Bush is thinking: bring it on...

My god it must be easy to be a liberal these days, just recycle the same old tired talking points from 3 years ago and run with it. Funny how you leave out the Israel option in this, they have a dog in this fight too. They'll get blamed for whatever happens anyway so I could see them sending a couple jets over there to bomb Ahmadinejad toward his glory as the 12th iman.

I don't expect a retort from you though since your modus operandi seems to be post worn out liberal talking points and then never back them up or clarify them. Guess it would suck for you to think on your own.

[Mazer]

For the benefit of everyone else who may want to discuss this topic, are there any specific points you disagree with, Hegemonic? I obviously don't agree with most of Repo's opinions but in this case I think he's making predictions and giving his analsys, not necessarily opining on these events (that would be pointless anyway, since none of this has happened yet).

Originally Posted by Mazer

not necessarily opining on these events

except for the parts full of his unfounded speculation and opinion.

stuck in a war with no good end in sight.

Except freeing 25 million people from tyranny, other than that insignificant bit it has done no good at all.

sending the country into deficit with little money to rebuild the Katrina devastated Gulf Coast

$17 billion per state = LITTLE MONEY!

It is probably another one of his lies

Nope, no opining there.

But he does usually go to war just before an election and guess what? There is a congressional election coming up this November.

Yes, he's so wily we went to war in 2001...3 years before an election and in 2003 1 year before an election. To Mr. Knife apparently anytime within a presidential term of office is cryptically "just before an election" so the president shouldn't do anything that might protect the country, lest he be accused of starting wars to get elected years in the future.

Bush has a pretty big ego

No opining there again. Considering Bush's pretty well known perchant for self-depricating humor I'd say if anything he has self-esteem issues, not ego issues.

To call this screed "non biased" or non opinionated is a crock o shit.

[multi]

China will not let Mr. Ahmadinejad's ego hurt their economy

It seems Russia will sell Mr. Ahmadinejad Sunburn Missile Yakhonts ..etc
so if they get these nuclear weapons, if all hell doesn't break lose there first there could be some sort of cold war type of nuclear stand off..not the inevitable immediate dustruction of Israel
he might want them off the map but i doubt he will risk having his own country blown off the map in the process

Originally Posted by multi

It seems Russia will sell Mr. Ahmadinejad Sunburn Missile Yakhonts ..etc
so if they get these nuclear weapons, if all hell doesn't break lose there first there could be some sort of cold war type of nuclear stand off..not the inevitable immediate dustruction of Israel
he might want them off the map but i doubt he will risk having his own country blown off the map in the process

Considering he's a firm 12th Iman believer I don't think we should assume anything with him.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by Hegemonic

To call this screed "non biased" or non opinionated is a crock o shit.

Read into Repo's words what you will and have your say. For myself I got bored with Repo a long time ago, he's such an easy target.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Hegemonic

except for the parts full of his unfounded speculation and opinion.



Except freeing 25 million people from tyranny, other than that insignificant bit it has done no good at all.


$17 billion per state = LITTLE MONEY!


Nope, no opining there.


Yes, he's so wily we went to war in 2001...3 years before an election and in 2003 1 year before an election. To Mr. Knife apparently anytime within a presidential term of office is cryptically "just before an election" so the president shouldn't do anything that might protect the country, lest he be accused of starting wars to get elected years in the future.


No opining there again. Considering Bush's pretty well known perchant for self-depricating humor I'd say if anything he has self-esteem issues, not ego issues.

still drinking the kool-aid, huh? you know deep down inside your boy Bush is a fucking disaster, but that is one reality check you just can't cash. we have incompetent, foolish, and duplicitous government - the leadership of whom are largely under criminal investigation and/or indictment at the moment. five years of Bush and GOP control is like watching a slow-motion train wreck. must be getting a little slow over on your blog, huh, as more and more people swim away from the ship.

yawn. another boring, ignorant liberal. Come back when you can back up your regurgitated talking points with anything resembling facts.

[albed]

Funny that after five years of 'train wreck' and 'disaster' the U.S. is free of terrorist attacks with a healthy economy, low unemployment and is such a great place that millions of foreigners become criminals to live here.


Could the liberals really think this country is in such terrible shape or do they simply have their heads so far up their asses they see nothing but shit?

Originally Posted by albed

Could the liberals really think this country is in such terrible shape or do they simply have their heads so far up their asses they see nothing but shit?

No, they want it to be in horrible shape. You have to remember the Democrats and liberals pull their supporters from the victim class of society, therefore they desperately need the economy to be bad so they can woo the poor, downtroden voters, since they have no appealing platform that's all they can run on.

[floydian slip]

as soon as you all come out of your partisan fantasy lands, maybe you will realize that there is no difference in political parties anymore. most are corrupt and work for the corporations. it sure would be nice to work less than 100 days and vote myself a raise every year.

back to the topic...

just like iraq this is a bi partisan effort


The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran

However, despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran is even developing nuclear weapons in the first place...

in May of 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution with only three dissenting votes calling on the Bush administration to “use all appropriate means”—presumably including military force—to “prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

but then again we need war to keep the economy running our way of life secure and to distract us from the real terrorists (the politicians)

Yep, they don't possess them currently so OBVIOUSLY the only option is to wait until they actually have them and possibly nuke Israel, as they have stated is their goal in life. Why can't us damn imperialist Americans just learn to trust homicidal radical islamic leaders!!!?!?!!?

[albed]

just like iraq this is a bi partisan effort

What Iraq are you referring to?

The bi-party gave up on Iraq as soon as the going got tough.

I expect the same thing with Iran.

[floydian slip]

Originally Posted by Hegemonic

Yep, they don't possess them currently so OBVIOUSLY the only option is to wait until they actually have them and possibly nuke Israel, as they have stated is their goal in life.

Show me where they stated that their goal is to nuke Israel or were you just spinning.

BTW who were the original terrorists? There were no terrorists before the Allies took over from the Ottomans. Everything was fine(compared to today) in the middle east before the Brits decided to carve it up after WW1, since then the CIA, KGB, MI6, Mossad ect has made it the place it is today. How about we carve up the U.S. and give the indians a nation. We can throw in your house too. Make you move out and put up a wall so you cant get back in.

[albed]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...601413,00.html

Thursday October 27, 2005 - Iran's new president created a sense of outrage in the west yesterday by describing Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the face of the earth".

http://www.opendemocracy.net/democra...srael_2974.jsp

After the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini-led Iran of the 1980s routinely called for Israel’s destruction.

Originally Posted by floydian slip

BTW who were the original terrorists? There were no terrorists before the Allies took over from the Ottomans. Everything was fine(compared to today) in the middle east before the Brits decided to carve it up after WW1, since then the CIA, KGB, MI6, Mossad ect has made it the place it is today.

Try searching "mideast history" you clueless idiot. It's been one of the most violent regions on earth for centuries. Hell even a few stories from the old testiment should give you a clue.

[Mazer]

If we were going to do in Iran what we did in Iraq then we would start out by sanctioning Iran with a ten-year-long embargo. Saddam was too stubborn to obey the rules the international community laid down for him, but Iran might be different. It would be best to get the UN, or some other multinational coalition, involved here before cosidering military action.

War is not the answer, it's the question. 'Not yet' is the answer.

Originally Posted by floydian slip

Show me where they stated that their goal is to nuke Israel or were you just spinning.

BTW who were the original terrorists? There were no terrorists before the Allies took over from the Ottomans. Everything was fine(compared to today) in the middle east before the Brits decided to carve it up after WW1, since then the CIA, KGB, MI6, Mossad ect has made it the place it is today. How about we carve up the U.S. and give the indians a nation. We can throw in your house too. Make you move out and put up a wall so you cant get back in.

Well you've sold me! That certainly justifies blowing up niteclubs full of innocent children!

Maybe if the Palestinians, who have never actually had a nation called Palestine and are actually mostly of Jordanian descent, had agreed to the numerous offers to have their own country they wouldn't be in the pickle they are today, with their terrorist government broke because they aren't getting undeserved handouts anymore.

[theknife]

here's another fun sidebar on the Iran "crisis" for alspan (or is it hegebed?):

Reports: Plame Was Monitoring Iran Nukes When Outed

By E&P Staff

Published: May 02, 2006 10:55 AM ET
NEW YORK What was Valerie Plame working on at the CIA when she was outed by administraton officials and columnist Robert Novak? MSNBC's David Schuster on Monday said he had confirmed an earlier report that she was helping to keep track of Iran's nuclear activity--not a front and center issue for the White House.

Earlier this year, Larisa Alexandrovna of the Web site RawStory.com, reported that Plame, whose covert status was compromised in the leak, was monitoring weapons proliferation in Iran. At the time, officials told her that Plame's outing resulted in "severe" damage to her team and "significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation."

On last night's Hardball, MSNBC correspondent Shuster reported that intelligence sources told him thatr Wilson was part of an operation three years ago "tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran." And the sources asserted, he said, "that when here Wilson's cover was blown, the administration's ability to track Iran's nuclear ambitions was damaged as well."

rather neatly illustrates how the Bush administration deals with national security issues, no?

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1002426164

Unsubstantiated. "Sources" and "officials"...oh and from RawStory too! a bastion of objectivity!