Confront Iran danger early - Bush
 

Omfg he's going to confront them before he lweaves office in November/December isn't he?
What a madman this guy is.
Can one person with an inch of a brain please explain this to me.
How on earth does America afford another war?
There virtually bankrupt as it is.
But do you think he'll hit the Iranians just before he leaves office?
I certainly do and the consequences with be astronomical not now but for the future generations :(
World war three anyone? :(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7185580.stm

Re: Confront Iran danger early - Bush
 

I do and you can bet the Labour spin doctors are preparing even more lies ready for the traitor Brown to jump right up Bush's ****. :rolleyes:

Labour Remember some voted those Muppet's into power, I hope those that did vote them in are satisfied with what they did should we end up sending more young men into Iran as well as all the other American targets. ?

Re: Confront Iran danger early - Bush
 

What pluses does anyone get from another war?
Ok i agree the rich men get richer and the por people get poorer :(
But America will simply be bankrupt.
Where do they go from here?
The gates of hell are about to be opened :(
Very scary indeed :(

---------- Post added at 18:11 ---------- Previous post was at 17:49 ----------

They are allegedly 2 years away from a nuclear bomb so i can see it from that point of view,but is that true?

Re: Confront Iran danger early - Bush
 

He will not be able to go to war, There are not enough troops not to mention support for him to go into Iran. He needs the public on side, because he needs the politicans on side to get it done. Congress will stop him if he even dares.

The world is a different place now and people will not be so willing to support a war.

---------- Post added at 18:19 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------

Yes, All those who voted Labour support killing loads of people, just because you disagree with them does mean you need to try and pretend your morally superior (or those who did vote labour are morally corrupt).

Did you vote for the Lib Dems? Because those of you who didnt and voted Tory, Labour or didnt vote supported the war, I hope your happy! :rolleyes:

Everyone needs to stop jumping ahead and getting annoyed with the event that hasn't happened yet

Re: Confront Iran danger early - Bush
 

But do you think Iran is trying to acquire nuclear arms?

Re: Confront Iran danger early - Bush
 

good answer Damien :tu:

Re: Confront Iran danger early - Bush
 

No, he hasn't got the troops* and large parts of the US administration (the grown-ups, in fact) are actively working to stop it and every one of his Arab friends in the Middle East is saying 'for Allah's sake don't do it, we've enough on our plate sorting out your last mess'. In fact, Iran were recently commended for helping out in Iraq by, er, a US Army officer, who was quickly squashed for it and forced to put out a 'clarifications'. This is on top of clearing up in Lebanon and Afghanistan, neither of which are entirely altruistic, selfless operations ('who do you like more, those nice Iranians helping you rebuild or the nasty Americans/Israelis who blew it up in the first place?' Hearts and minds goes both ways).

Bush is trying to drum up support, but it's just not there - everyone knows he's out of here. Gordon Brown is as likely to back it as he is to convert to Hare Krishna - he's not a neo-con by any stretch, they distrust him and miss old Tony so much they keep giving him jobs and money to make him feel loved. Bless.

Iran is in the middle of election season - the 28th since 1979. Be a shame to spoil that by bombing it flat, really.

Er. Yes. What's your point?

Thoroughly debunked now, that one. Look up 'Iran NIE' in Google - it pays to keep up with the news, y'know.

* Here's why - http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com...manoeuvre.html

Re: Confront Iran danger early - Bush
 

Not quite thoroughly

Re: Confront Iran danger early - Bush
 

The Telegraph is MI6's house journal, so evidently some spooks have got the hump and planted a story. Been going on years (remember the anti-Galloway smears that cost them a fortune? Same source). MI5 use the Sunday Times, of course.

The Telegraph is less the Telavivegraph than it was under Conrad Black and his neocon chums, but nevertheless comes from that sector of the map (pro-Likud and very Israel-friendly. Given that, I don't believe the story, too loose and too unattributed.

What's actually happened in the CIA is an internal coup against the previous management who'd spin and suppress intelligence to please Bush and Cheney, leading to the Iraq debacle. After that, professional intelligence veterans got their voice back. It's rather illogical to say that because they were too hawkish over Iraq they're too soft over Iran, since it implies that no matter how bad the cockup they're incapable of fixing it. The history of US intelligence failures - Pearl Harbor and Vietnam* - show that they're very good at sorting things out *after* the horse has bolted. It all comes down to who you believe, professional intelligence gatherers who are trying to put their organisation back together, or the people who broke it.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7185985.stm

Re: Confront Iran danger early - Bush
 

Remind me if I've got it wrong, but didn't Saddam also hold elections? Ok so if anyone voted against him they tended to dissapear for a while, and maybe bits would turn up later, but they had the choice to vote against him right?
So does that mean you consider Iraq to have been democratic?
Also, aren't the unelected religious leaders in Iran able to overturn any decision made by Iran's parliment, without it then going back to parliment for re-assessment?

Re: Confront Iran danger early - Bush
 

whats new about georgie boy ? ;)

Re: Confront Iran danger early - Bush
 

no profit in peace...