The Right Is Preparing to Invade Iran

[WhatsHisNuts]

I didn't believe it the other night when I heard the message change. I figured O'Reilly was on a specific topic on Iran, then I realized he was using "Iran" in place of "Iraq" and "Al Queda". It definitely caught my attention, but I didn't think too much of it until the next morning when I was listening to Quinn & Rose (Rush wannabes) and heard the exact same message.

Apparently, Iran is our real enemy and it is time to take them out....at least that is the message these right wing radio hosts are now sending out, loud and clear.

What's really irritating is that some of our right-wing supporters will continue to buy this line of crap. I don't get it. Is there anyone out there that sees what's going on? When did we become a nation of 5-year olds that can't think for ourselves. It's really disheartening for someone that loves this country to see it goto hell like this.

I heard a song by a guy named Guy Forsyth called "Long Long Time" and the part that caught my attention is below -
I wonder how the world sees us; rich beyond compare, powerful without equal. A spoiled drunk 15-year old waving a gun in their face.

 

[smurphy]

When did we become a nation of 5-year olds that can't think for ourselves.

2001.

 

[Cie]

2001.

more precislely, 9/11/2001 @ 9am.......

 

[gardenweasel]

interesting...the atheist denounces bellicose political posturing aimed at iran and ignores the ominous words spoken by iran's possibly soon to be mass murdering president...the leader of a theocracy,btw(not to be confused with a state that may have some form of religious identity)....

it`s posturing..it`s designed to make sure that iran understands the consequences of fooling around with their soon to be acquired new nuclear weapons...

funny thing is that our resident atheist labels anyone with any religious upbringing at all a fanatic, then turns and embraces, coddles,courts and bemoans our sending a stern massage to the most extreme self-labeled fanatics on the planet today........

:shrug:

a question,gmro....

if iran did get the nuclear weapon they desire and obliterated israel with it,to the point they couldn`t respond,should we respond on behalf of one of our closest ally`s and practically the only democracy in the middle east?.....

gmro?...

 

[THE KOD]

I said along time ago that Bush would try to take on Iran before he leaves office.

At this point what has he got to lose.

And Iran is up to no good and involved everyday in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts with money , bombs, and jihad types.

And Iran is harboring Al Sadr , their choice for Iraq dictator once the US leaves Irag.

The writing is on the wall. .

Maybe tactical buster bombs to take out their nuke capability .

George cant do much worse than now anyway.

 

[THE KOD]

....

if iran did get the nuclear weapon they desire and obliterated israel with it,to the point they couldn`t respond,should we respond on behalf of one of our closest ally`s and practically the only democracy in the middle east?.....

gmro?...

............................................................

could be nuclear winter if that happens.

 

[The Sponge]

interesting...the atheist denounces bellicose political posturing aimed at iran and ignores the ominous words spoken by iran's possibly soon to be mass murdering president...the leader of a theocracy,btw(not to be confused with a state that may have some form of religious identity)....

it`s posturing..it`s designed to make sure that iran understands the consequences of fooling around with their soon to be acquired new nuclear weapons...

funny thing is that our resident atheist labels anyone with any religious upbringing at all a fanatic, then turns and embraces, coddles,courts and bemoans our sending a stern massage to the most extreme self-labeled fanatics on the planet today........

:shrug:

a question,gmro....

if iran did get the nuclear weapon they desire and obliterated israel with it,to the point they couldn`t respond,should we respond on behalf of one of our closest ally`s and practically the only democracy in the middle east?.....

gmro?...

i never saw a person in my life that believes every piece of crap the right has been shoveling him even tho the lies have been exposed hundreds of times. Politically every thing you post is bullshit and you don't even realize it. Like Eddie said Weasel "im not surprised that Fox News is for dummies"

 

[THE KOD]

'Nuclear winter' may kill more than a nuclear war
19:00 01 March 2007
NewScientist.com news service


A regional exchange of relatively small nuclear weapons could plunge the world into a decade-long "nuclear winter", destroying agriculture and killing millions, according to a new study.

Weapons experts to consider that small-scale nuclear exchanges are now more likely than the massive US-Soviet exchanges feared during the Cold War.

In the 1980s, scientists calculated that such exchanges would put enough smoke into the atmosphere to shade the Earth from the Sun, causing a nuclear winter.

Now scientists have re-calculated the likelihood of nuclear winter using modern, vastly improved climate models and a more likely modern scenario for small-scale nuclear war. Brian Toon, head of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Alan Robock of Rutgers University in New Jersey, both in the US, predict less cooling than the 1980s modellers. However, they predict the cooling would last longer, with potentially devastating consequences.

Different targets
The pair modelled the impact of 100 explosions in subtropical megacities. They modelled 15-kilotonne explosions, like the Hiroshima bomb. This is also the size of the bombs now possessed by India and Pakistan, among others.

The immediate blast and radiation from the exchange of 100 small nuclear bombs killed between three million and 16 million people, depending on the targets. But the global effect of the resulting one-to-five million tonnes of smoke was much worse. ?It is very surprising how few weapons are needed to do so much damage,? says Toon.

This is partly because modern scenarios aim at different targets. Toon says most of the huge US and Russian nuclear warheads are aimed, in a first strike, at missile silos in wilderness or suburban military installations. There is not much to burn, and after the first warhead hits, subsequent explosions do not release much additional smoke.

Urban firestorm
By contrast, a regional exchange where adversaries target each others? megacities would ignite huge urban firestorms. Toon calculates the smoke released per kilotonne of explosive yield would be 100 times greater than in the Cold War scenarios.

Moreover, it lasts longer. The 1980s models, says Toon, did not extend into the upper atmosphere far enough, and could not be run long enough to discover this.

?Soot from fires is black and absorbs solar radiation,? Robock told New Scientist. ?As it begins to fall it is constantly being heated and lofted.? Such particles, they calculate, rise to the upper atmosphere and stay for more than six years.

Global chill
In comparison, Robock says, particulates from a volcanic eruption, which stay in the lower atmosphere and last only about a year, have nevertheless cooled the planet enough to cause famine.

Even taking global warming into account, the models predict that the cooling of the planet for a decade following the exchange would be nearly twice as great as the global warming of the past century, causing colder temperatures than Europe?s "Little Ice Age" of the 16th to 18th centuries.

..........................................................

I can see it now. Bush and Cheney and all their families huddling in a underground mountain retreat waiting out the winter.

So they can emerge and take over the world.

:scared

 

[gardenweasel]

i never saw a person in my life that believes every piece of crap the right has been shoveling him even tho the lies have been exposed hundreds of times. Politically every thing you post is bullshit and you don't even realize it. Like Eddie said Weasel "im not surprised that Fox News is for dummies"

spongy,the difference between sheep and people, is that people have the ability to reason....

i have a difficult time with people who refuse to study history and learn from it...

if I told you repeatedly that i was going to kill your brothers, sisters and family-and then you saw me loading my pistol but failed to act-do you not share any of the blame?...

i think our sending a stern massage to iran isn`t an option...it`s a necessity....

actually,i`m still not sure whether preemption would be a good idea...but laying our cards on the table is...

 

[smurphy]

if iran did get the nuclear weapon they desire and obliterated israel with it

This simply WON'T happen. Despite the rhetoric of their leader, Iran's #1 goal is preservation. Their power structure does not NOT lie with Ahmadenijad - he's little more than a talking head. They know that a nuclear attack on on Israel would equal their own complete destruction. Most of the country and it's leaders are not terrorists - they care more about survival than jihad.

The chickenhawks of our country are trying to sell us on Iran just like they did Iraq. Difference this time is that an attack/invasion on them would would bring probably 50 times the consequences to us.

The only answer here is diplomacy. If they do something so stupid as to attack first, then fine - we go all out. But it's an absolute unwinnable position if we pre-emptively strike. We will not have the support at home to complete the mission - to say nothing of the global shit that will - yes WILL affect us very negatively.

 

[kosar]

the ominous words spoken by iran's possibly soon to be mass murdering president..

Give it a f*cking rest. The 'ominous words?'

Jesus Christ. Our own NIE estimate states that they haven't had a nukular (shout out to W) program other than for energy for 4 years.

That crap about eliminating Israel? Surely you have seen the actual translation of that comment. Goofball jingoistic sycophants like yourself continue to try to propogate *your* version of it.

They are a member of the NPT, unlike India, who we are basically partners with in the nuclear trade.

Who gives a shit if he publicly questions the Holocaust? Sure we can all talk about what an idiot he is and laugh at the absurdity about his comment that there are no homos in Iran, but I want to know, specifically, how that country is any more eligible for 'attack' than Saudi Arabia, just to name one example.

It's uncomprehensible to me that after all the bullshit lies fed to us about Iraq, ANYBODY could even consider a pre-emptive attack/invasion of Iran at this point.

It's 'funny.' They cherry-pick info from our intelligence services, and ignore dissenting views within the same services, ignore the weapons inspectors, for justification to occupy Iraq, yet the CONSENSUS view of our intelligence services that Iran has no hostile nuclear program and hasn't for years, of these same services are IGNORED totally.

Saddam says, accurately, that he has no WMD. The inspectors say that there is no evidence that he had WMD= ATTACK! OCCUPY!

Iran correctly(according to our intel agencies) says that they do not have a nuclear weapons program=ATTACK!! / OCCUPY!!

Did you see how easy it was to get this 'mission accomplished' in Iraq? A little rinky-dink country with NO MILITARY TO SPEAK OF? Not after 2 weeks, anyways, and really not at all.

Now triple the size of the country. Add in a military that had not been decimated by the first war and then the subsequent sanctions.

Your utter arrogance and ignorance sometimes astounds me, Mr. Weasel.

 

[kosar]

This simply WON'T happen. Despite the rhetoric of their leader, Iran's #1 goal is preservation. Their power structure does not NOT lie with Ahmadenijad - he's little more than a talking head. They know that a nuclear attack on on Israel would equal their own complete destruction. Most of the country and it's leaders are not terrorists - they care more about survival than jihad.

The chickenhawks of our country are trying to sell us on Iran just like they did Iraq. Difference this time is that an attack/invasion on them would would bring probably 50 times the consequences to us.

The only answer here is diplomacy. If they do something so stupid as to attack first, then fine - we go all out. But it's an absolute unwinnable position if we pre-emptively strike. We will not have the support at home to complete the mission - to say nothing of the global shit that will - yes WILL affect us very negatively.

Exactly. Was typing mine when this was posted. It's a toally insane idea.

Now, i'll expect Wayne or Weasel to give a lecture on how we have the tanks and planes and there's NO WAY we could ever lose any conflict because of the moonbats, code pinkies and the media.

What total bullshit.

 

[kosar]

i have a difficult time with people who refuse to study history and learn from it...

Now THAT is rich. :mj07:

Since you are the 'historical' type, look up Vietnam, Afghan/USSR and, um, this current 'war' that we're in. Particularly the latter 2.

No mention of Neville Chamberlain is needed, as that has absolutely no similarity whatsoever to any current situation. Or really, ANY situation since 1937 or so.

 

[THE KOD]

kosar

I dont think its possible that Iran is not going full throttle towards making a nuklear weapon. There are too many signs and evidence shown.

They are masking it obviously . They know if they dont keep it under wraps Isreal or US is going to take it out.

I agree with smurph though, they are not going to use it . They want it so that no one attacks them . They want it to wield power in the middle east. They want it for prestige of a country capable of being a nuclear power. They want it to join into being a world power.

I think George W probably dreams about riding in the Stealth bomber that would drop a bunker buster on Irans nuke facilities.

He would wet his friggin pants.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Now THAT is rich. :mj07:

Since you are the 'historical' type, look up Vietnam, Afghan/USSR and, um, this current 'war' that we're in. Particularly the latter 2.

No mention of Neville Chamberlain is needed, as that has absolutely no similarity whatsoever to any current situation. Or really, ANY situation since 1937 or so.

Kosar, don't you realize that Saddam was Hitler and now Ahmadinejad is obviously the next Hitler. Just go ahead and hand them Poland, I mean Israel. You code pinkie pacifist appeasers kill me.

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

interesting...the atheist denounces bellicose political posturing aimed at iran and ignores the ominous words spoken by iran's possibly soon to be mass murdering president...the leader of a theocracy,btw(not to be confused with a state that may have some form of religious identity)....

it`s posturing..it`s designed to make sure that iran understands the consequences of fooling around with their soon to be acquired new nuclear weapons...

funny thing is that our resident atheist labels anyone with any religious upbringing at all a fanatic, then turns and embraces, coddles,courts and bemoans our sending a stern massage to the most extreme self-labeled fanatics on the planet today........

:shrug:

a question,gmro....

if iran did get the nuclear weapon they desire and obliterated israel with it,to the point they couldn`t respond,should we respond on behalf of one of our closest ally`s and practically the only democracy in the middle east?.....

gmro?...

The fact that I don't believe in Jesus, Allah, Santa Claus, and the like has nothing to do with my post, but I'll take the bait anyway.

If we are up against a theocracy bent on our destruction in the name of their god, what does an invasion solve? I've been asking this since day 1, and nobody will answer it. I hear the "War on Terror" mantra but anyone with a nose for reason (as you claim to have) should be capable of realizing that that concept is absurd. It is not terror we are at war with, it is religious extremists that do not have a home with a border.

Personally, I would have gone nuclear in the region at my first opportunity after 9/11 (knowing that this was based in religious fanaticism). There would have been less casualties than the never-ending war we are now stuck in and the message would have been crystal effin' clear.

If Iran is the big threat that you seem to think they are, you follow the route of diplomacy and keep them in their place. If that doesn't work, I certainly don't invade them. If they make any hostile attack on our homeland, I go nuclear.

You can't tell me that Iran is a bigger threat that the USSR was. Why didn't we invade them? They not only were developing nuclear weapons, they had them. You let Bush and Co. convince you that just because a guy hates us, we have to invade his country. That's childish and is exactly why they hate us.

To answer your question about Iran attacking Israel: If they attacked is Israel with a nuclear bomb, I don't know what I would do. I don't see Israel as a valuable ally, and don't see how getting further mixed up in a religious war makes sense for America. If they attacked the US or UK with a nuclear bomb, I'd probably level the entire Middle East.

Since you brought up the religious part, I'll finish with a thought from Sam Harris: If our species ever eradicates itself from the face of the earth, it will be in the name of god.

 

[The Sponge]

. Is there anyone out there that sees what's going on? When did we become a nation of 5-year olds that can't think for ourselves. It's really disheartening for someone that loves this country to see it goto hell like this.

]

Sorry weasel but when GM posted this statement it got me a little steamed but when you posted what must be a copy and paste because you have been saying that same pile of shit for the last two years, I became a steamed crab. I want to also apologize for Smurfh, Kosar and Gm cause i know when they read your post they thought the same thing.

 

[Agent 0659]

Give it a f*cking rest. The 'ominous words?'

Jesus Christ. Our own NIE estimate states that they haven't had a nukular (shout out to W) program other than for energy for 4 years.

That crap about eliminating Israel? Surely you have seen the actual translation of that comment. Goofball jingoistic sycophants like yourself continue to try to propogate *your* version of it.

They are a member of the NPT, unlike India, who we are basically partners with in the nuclear trade.

Who gives a shit if he publicly questions the Holocaust? Sure we can all talk about what an idiot he is and laugh at the absurdity about his comment that there are no homos in Iran, but I want to know, specifically, how that country is any more eligible for 'attack' than Saudi Arabia, just to name one example.

It's uncomprehensible to me that after all the bullshit lies fed to us about Iraq, ANYBODY could even consider a pre-emptive attack/invasion of Iran at this point.

It's 'funny.' They cherry-pick info from our intelligence services, and ignore dissenting views within the same services, ignore the weapons inspectors, for justification to occupy Iraq, yet the CONSENSUS view of our intelligence services that Iran has no hostile nuclear program and hasn't for years, of these same services are IGNORED totally.

Saddam says, accurately, that he has no WMD. The inspectors say that there is no evidence that he had WMD= ATTACK! OCCUPY!

Iran correctly(according to our intel agencies) says that they do not have a nuclear weapons program=ATTACK!! / OCCUPY!!

Did you see how easy it was to get this 'mission accomplished' in Iraq? A little rinky-dink country with NO MILITARY TO SPEAK OF? Not after 2 weeks, anyways, and really not at all.

Now triple the size of the country. Add in a military that had not been decimated by the first war and then the subsequent sanctions.

Your utter arrogance and ignorance sometimes astounds me, Mr. Weasel.

:clap: :142hail:

 

[Chadman]

Some interesting food for thought in this thread, of course I think us doing anything towards Iran would be a monumental mistake. It's not proven to be warranted, it's actually been documented that it's not warranted, but it's not like that matters to this administration, which is the scary thing.

One thing that nags at me is the little headlines over the past 2-3 months, about the little Iraqi boats that have approached our destroyers over there. I see some real similarities in the conjecture and commentary coming from the administration and conservative mouthpieces in these situations that remind me of the no-fly zones in Southern Iraq. I remember when the rag-tags were firing up some occasional flack at our warplanes who were flying much higher than their makeshift weaponry could hit, and then hearing about how we were still being "attacked" and the U.S. was in danger - as this was proof of their aggression.

Just one of the little things that keep me concerned about what could happen if these people really want to be again proactive in starting a conflict to "protect" our country.

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

Chad: You're right on about the recent headlines. The Bush Administration is setting us up for another invasion....that's the point of my original post. The ground work is being laid by the toadies and it is only a matter of time before Bush makes his move.