US Plants Propaganda As "news"

[nmainguy]

Iran also recently said that they need to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. So, if Iran shows being close to making a nuclear bomb, is it ok with the Democrats to go do something about, or is it NOT any of our business, and let the Middle East work it out themselves ?

Sounds like Iran needs to hook up with Parrothead. They could take turns commiting genocide.

Seriously, I'd just as soon lock up the Middle East in a room and may the best man win.

If it just wasn't for our pesky addiction to Middle East oil-think what a different world that would be.

[west is right on the money re: Israel BTW]

[TJones]

Sounds like Iran needs to hook up with Parrothead. They could take turns commiting genocide.

Seriously, I'd just as soon lock up the Middle East in a room and may the best man win.

If it just wasn't for our pesky addiction to Middle East oil-think what a different world that would be.

I was wondering how long it would take to reference Parrot, She is good people nmain, just a little more headstrong in her views than I am.

BTW, I got repremanded for my comment about your old avatar NMAIN, thanks for setting me up ! I should have seen it coming, you got me. Shame on you.

[HeightsGuy]

QUOTE(TJones @ Monday, December 5th, 2005 @ 2:35pm)

The question of Iran has been probed for years as a poissible threat, this is NOT new news, if it is to you, then I don;t know what to tell you, Iran also recently said that they need to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. So, if Iran shows being close to making a nuclear bomb, is it ok with the Democrats to go do something about, or is it NOT any of our business, and let the Middle East work it out themselves ?

TJones, you were the one saying we need to take a history lesson. All I am saying is that if Iran drops a bomb on someone in the next few years, history may not take a favorable view on the US and it's wild goose chase for phantom WOMD's in Iraq when they have been in full view in Iran the whole time....

[TJones]

TJones, you were the one saying we need to take a history lesson. All I am saying is that if Iran drops a bomb on someone in the next few years, history may not take a favorable view on the US and it's wild goose chase for phantom WOMD's in Iraq when they have been in full view in Iran the whole time....

I said the question of Iran has been brought up before, we believed that Saddam was a bigger threat at that time, but with such backlash as to what's going on in Iraq, do you feel it would be ok to continue the War on Terror, into Iran ? Iran and Syria, have been under our scope for decades, you know that, and I know that.

[HeightsGuy]

Whether I believe it's OK or not is mute as the US does not have the resources or the will to expand operations into Iran. IMO, this makes the decision to go to war with Iraq an absolute blunder. The "we believed Iraq was a bigger threat" argument is a bad argument. This is war, you don't get a "whoops".

[west20th]

I said the question of Iran has been brought up before, we believed that Saddam was a bigger threat at that time, but with such backlash as to what's going on in Iraq, do you feel it would be ok to continue the War on Terror, into Iran ? Iran and Syria, have been under our scope for decades, you know that, and I know that.

Agree or not with the Iraq war you have to admit it has stretched our military thin. I don't believe we should invade Syria or Iran and I'm not sure we could now if we wanted to.

[TJones]

Whether I believe it's OK or not is mute as the US does not have the resources or the will to expand operations into Iran. IMO, this makes the decision to go to war with Iraq an absolute blunder. The "we believed Iraq was a bigger threat" argument is a bad argument. This is war, you don't get a "whoops".

Where is the "whoops", Iran hasn't shown aggression yet, just a little barking, as soon as their own government kills couple of tens of thousands of their own people, then call me. They made some empty threats to Israel, and said they want to shop around for some nuclear materials. I would love to go in there and straighten them out. I feel confident our military will step up to the challenge if need be also. That to is just my opinion.

[HeightsGuy]

You see, you're forgetting history. We did not go into Iraq to liberate Iraqis, we went in there because Saddam wasn't complying with UN WOMD inspectors. Our Administration sold us on the notion Saddam had them and was planning on making more of them.

Now, instead of being able to pressure Iran into slowing down it's own program like we have in the past, Iran is now, without impunity, able to announce to the world that they are going to take bids on building more reactors. My contention is that by going into Iraq we have now tied one arm behind our back. Iran knows we won't do anything militarily about it now, so they get to snub their noses at the US and build reactors at will.

So, yes, I'll stand by my "whoops" statement.

[west20th]

Where is the "whoops", Iran hasn't shown aggression yet, just a little barking, as soon as their own government kills couple of tens of thousands of their own people, then call me. They made some empty threats to Israel, and said they want to shop around for some nuclear materials. I would love to go in there and straighten them out. I feel confident our military will step up to the challenge if need be also. That to is just my opinion.

Of course our military is up to the challenge. In Iraq, Iran, where ever. But what happens after the military victory is won? That is when the politicians take over and that's is where I have no confidence. We left the job in Afghanistan unfinished to invade Iraq. Now you want to leave Iraq unfinished to invade someone else. Whatever happened to "no cut and run", "stay the course"? Or do you now feel Iraq is "won" and we can move on?

[HeightsGuy]

We liberated Iraq from Saddam and are handing the keys to the Shiites who are also in power in Iran, and in the process have weakened our position in other places due to the stretching of resources.

So, I'll even go so far as to say Iran is the real winner of this war.

[RedScare]

We liberated Iraq from Saddam and are handing the keys to the Shiites who are also in power in Iran, and in the process have weakened our position in other places due to the stretching of resources.

So, I'll even go so far as to say Iran is the real winner of this war.

Yup.

If Saddam was a threat to anyone, it was Iran. We neutralized the threat, and delivered control of the country to the Shiites, aka Iranian Mullahs. Nice job, Rummy. Way to go, Dick. Oh, and you too, Dubya. I feel Sooo much safer, now.

Editorial comment - I didn't feel unsafe before and I don't feel unsafe now. But, all you security moms out there probably oughtta start asking your neo-con friends why we helped out Iran.

[nmainguy]

I was wondering how long it would take to reference Parrot, She is good people nmain, just a little more headstrong in her views than I am.

BTW, I got repremanded for my comment about your old avatar NMAIN, thanks for setting me up ! I should have seen it coming, you got me. Shame on you.

ummm...."good people" don't advocate genocide IMUO.

Who reprimanded you for my avatar? And you know I didn't set you up. I removed it after your comment because I was too dense to realize what I had done.

You, on the other hand-get your mind outta the gutter!!!

[TJones]

Of course our military is up to the challenge. In Iraq, Iran, where ever. But what happens after the military victory is won? That is when the politicians take over and that's is where I have no confidence. We left the job in Afghanistan unfinished to invade Iraq. Now you want to leave Iraq unfinished to invade someone else. Whatever happened to "no cut and run", "stay the course"? Or do you now feel Iraq is "won" and we can move on?

Tut, tut, tut, I never said anything about "cut and run". I am glad you agree that our military is up to it, we will be finished in Iraq in enough time to thwart anything in Iran. You think the world community will sit idlely by while Iran builds reactors, knowing full well that they aren't for powering some lights around the region ? "He who have little faith." So, now all the sudden Iran is a bigger threat ? How come no Dem.Sens. ever mentioned it while they were approving the President's decision to go to War ?

Yup.

If Saddam was a threat to anyone, it was Iran. We neutralized the threat, and delivered control of the country to the Shiites, aka Iranian Mullahs. Nice job, Rummy. Way to go, Dick. Oh, and you too, Dubya. I feel Sooo much safer, now.

Editorial comment - I didn't feel unsafe before and I don't feel unsafe now. But, all you security moms out there probably oughtta start asking your neo-con friends why we helped out Iran.

How come all the sudden this is the Democrats defense to why we shouldn't have gone to Iraq ? Is this what is being said on "Air America" today ? You guys have never mentioned once anything about Iran until today when news comes out that Iran says they want nuclear power now. Iran can think they are gonna get away with it, but it ain't gonna happen. You nay sayers need to get a backbone, you guys already think "all is lost !", "we are spread to thin !" "the sky is falling !" and that is exactly the thinking the media puts out there and you guys eat it up all day long. You are all SHEEP ! I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that when Iraq is truly able to stand on their own in a few months, you guys will be saying, well, George just got lucky.

[HeightsGuy]

How come no Dem.Sens. ever mentioned it while they were approving the President's decision to go to War ?

C'mon, that's a softball, it's not a Senator's job to turn down a president wanting to go to war with a country with the excuse of "we need to go to war with a different one". This has nothing to do with politics. My contention is not that it's "all of a sudden". My contention is that we went to war with Saddam knowing full well what Iran was up to, but have gotten so bogged down in Iraq that we can no longer do anything militarily about it.

And to the challenge, of course our military is up to any short-term challenge, but I'll contend we don't have the resources to throw 50,000 troops somewhere long-term right now. Look, Humvees don't come with a 100,000 mile guarantees. All that hardware sitting in that desert for the past three years will soon be falling apart, and I have yet to see any massive funding appropriations to replace it. That bill will be coming due in the next year or two, and in the meantime I don't believe we can repurpose it.

Iran came up today because they announced that they will be requesting bids for two entirely new reactors. IMO they would have not announced this had we won the war by now and gotten out of there.

[west20th]

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that when Iraq is truly able to stand on their own in a few months, you guys will be saying, well, George just got lucky.

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts if we are ever in a conflict with Iran Iraq will be fighting against us.

[RedScare]

This is not a defense. However, I have always said that if we are going to rush to invade sovereign nations, we should go after the most dangerous ones. That has always been N. Korea and Iran, and has never been impotent Iraq.

Bush invaded Iraq to settle a score, but just as importantly, because the neo-cons thought it was an easy mark. They have found that the devil is in the details. In N. Korea and Iran, the devil would be not only in the details, but in the big picture, as well.

BTW, whoever thinks our military can putter around Afghanistan, continue to fight insurgents in Iraq, and mount a new offensive against Iran or N. Korea, needs to learn to do math. Even the Administration knows we don't have enough troops for that.

[nmainguy]

Tut, tut, tut, I never said anything about "cut and run". I am glad you agree that our military is up to it, we will be finished in Iraq in enough time to thwart anything in Iran. You think the world community will sit idlely by while Iran builds reactors, knowing full well that they aren't for powering some lights around the region ? "He who have little faith." So, now all the sudden Iran is a bigger threat ? How come no Dem.Sens. ever mentioned it while they were approving the President's decision to go to War ?

How come all the sudden this is the Democrats defense to why we shouldn't have gone to Iraq ? Is this what is being said on "Air America" today ? You guys have never mentioned once anything about Iran until today when news comes out that Iran says they want nuclear power now. Iran can think they are gonna get away with it, but it ain't gonna happen. You nay sayers need to get a backbone, you guys already think "all is lost !", "we are spread to thin !" "the sky is falling !" and that is exactly the thinking the media puts out there and you guys eat it up all day long. You are all SHEEP ! I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that when Iraq is truly able to stand on their own in a few months, you guys will be saying, well, George just got lucky.

nmainguy is not a Democrat-he is, however a Liberal.

nmainguy has never listened to Air America-he avoids talk radio at all costs [except an occasional Garden Line].

nmainguy is not a sheep-although he has been known to be sheepish.

And last but not least, nmainguy respectfully disagrees with TJ. I don't see how Iraq can "stand on their own in a few months"

I won't say I told you so but I will be demanding those dollars and still treat you to some donuts.

BTW, I'm sticking with west's assesment. Israel will do the ultimate dirty work when it comes to Iran.

[TJones]

C'mon, that's a softball, it's not a Senator's job to turn down a president wanting to go to war with a country with the excuse of "we need to go to war with a different one". This has nothing to do with politics. My contention is not that it's "all of a sudden". My contention is that we went to war with Saddam knowing full well what Iran was up to, but have gotten so bogged down in Iraq that we can no longer do anything militarily about it.

And to the challenge, of course our military is up to any short-term challenge, but I'll contend we don't have the resources to throw 50,000 troops somewhere long-term right now. Look, Humvees don't come with a 100,000 mile guarantees. All that hardware sitting in that desert for the past three years will soon be falling apart, and I have yet to see any massive funding appropriations to replace it. That bill will be coming due in the next year or two, and in the meantime I don't believe we can repurpose it.

Iran came up today because they announced that they will be requesting bids for two entirely new reactors. IMO they would have not announced this had we won the war by now and gotten out of there.

If it is NOT a senator's job to check the President, then how come they hold so much weight with you when they criticize Bush for what they see as poor leadership and bad decision making ? You can't have it both ways.

This IS the first time anything, ANYTHING, has been mentioned about Iran in this Forum, but some are acting like they have been saying Iran this and Iran that, this whole time. I know we just have to agree to disagree on this Iraq thing, I don't want to be a broken record, you mentioned earlier that we didn't go to Iraq to give people freedom, you are wrong about that, it wasn't the only reason, I'll give you that, but it most certainly was one of the main reasons outlined in Bush's speech to go to war. I even made a link of the speech, not a blog either, it is from the White House website.

I agree with your contention, that we knew what Iran was all about and might be capable of, and hind sight is 20/20, but Kim Jon Ilk's nuclear threat didn't come about until a year later, after we were already deep in the middle of Iraq. Iran steps up today, and you guys are like , "see I told you Iran was gonna be a problem, but I just kept my opinion to myself." There is no "whoops" here, the information was gathered, no matter how precise or poorly conceived it was, but everyone got to see the same stuff, the Pres. didn't have different intel than the Sens. A same conclusion and decision was made and the dye was cast.

So, let me ask you this, simple yes or no, you are saying that if we had to go to war with someone, it should have been Iran ?

If Israel will do the "dirtywork", then what the heck are we all up in arms about ?

(edit) NMAIN, I won't say, but I did love that avatar, I almost fell out my seat when I saw it. Classic my friend, Classic !

[nmainguy]

...everyone got to see the same stuff, the Pres. didn't have different intel than the Sens. A same conclusion and decision was made and the dye was cast.

Everyone did not see the same "stuff" nor should they in most cases. It is the Executive branch's duty to conduct foriegn policy and to gather intel. Congress does not have those vast resources at their finger-tips. And yes, the president didn't have different intel-he just had more. Now senators both Republican and Democrat are asking to see more; ie PDB's. This will be a long slog but everyone needs to know how we got into this war, warts and all.

At the very least, we owe it to the families of those lost.

[west20th]

, you mentioned earlier that we didn't go to Iraq to give people freedom, you are wrong about that, it wasn't the only reason, I'll give you that, but it most certainly was one of the main reasons outlined in Bush's speech to go to war.

We did not go to war to free the Iraq. That is a result of war (hopefully), not the reason for it. You don't go to war for the "result". That is bass-ackwords.

Ex. WWII:

Cause: We went to war because Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us.

Result (one of them) : We freed Japan from a military dictatorship and Germany from an insane dictator and installed a form of democracy in both countries. This was a result of our victory. By no means did we go to war to free either Japan or Germany.

When you try to justify a war with it's result (however noble) you are just masking the true reason for that war. The other reasons turned out to be untrue or not grave enough (IMO). Wish I knew what the true reasons were.

[TJones]

West, did you even go to the link I made especially for YOU ? You hurt my feelings man.

[west20th]

West, did you even go to the link I made especially for YOU ? You hurt my feelings man.

No I didn't. When you said Bush said "we are freeing Iraq" I believe you. But just because Bush says it doesn't make it so. That is not the reason for this war. Like I said it is a "result" not a reason. Bush doesn't/didn't give a rat's behind about Iraq's freedom. I may believe you but I don't believe Bush for a second.

[TJones]

No I didn't. When you said Bush said "we are freeing Iraq" I believe you. But just because Bush says it doesn't make it so. That is not the reason for this war. Like I said it is a "result" not a reason. Bush doesn't/didn't give a rat's behind about Iraq's freedom. I may believe you but I don't believe Bush for a second.

I knew you were a smart man west !

I don't hold Bush up there with the Pope, I just think he is a good man that got stuck between a rock and a hard place and had to make some dreadful decisions. I am of the belief that he hasn't lied to me yet, but if I feel he has for one second, I will call B*ll____ on him. I promise you that. I agree that Iraq's freedom is a result of war, but it was outlined as a reason, I guess Bush felt pretty confident as I do, that our boys can do what they are set out to do. God love every one of them !

[MidtownCoog]

Yesterday on Meet The Press, John McCain said:

"If that's the way the Iraqi press works, and the stories are true, I see no problem with paying to get the truth out.

You simple Simons don't understand how unique a Free Press truly is.

Iraq and the region are learning.

[nmainguy]

Yesterday on Meet The Press, John McCain said:

"If that's the way the Iraqi press works, and the stories are true, I see no problem with paying to get the truth out.

Iraq and the region are learning.

Yeah, the defense department taught-I meant payed-NO! I meant taught them well.

[west20th]

...and had to make some dreadful decisions. I am of the belief that he hasn't lied to me yet,

Hey we agree on something. Stop the presses. Bush has made some dreadful decisions. And I don't believe he has lied either. Misled yes. There is a difference. Only laying out evidence that backs up his claims while ignoring evidence that dispute them is misleading by technically not lying.

[TJones]

Hey we agree on something. Stop the presses. Bush has made some dreadful decisions. And I don't believe he has lied either. Misled yes. There is a difference. Only laying out evidence that backs up his claims while ignoring evidence that dispute them is misleading by technically not lying.

Nice try on the spin, you know I meant a dreadful (meaning, not wanting to have to make) decison of having to go to war, not that his decisions are dreadful (bad),I must have ESP, I knew as soon as I wrote it, you were gonna do that !

[west20th]

Yesterday on Meet The Press, John McCain said:

"If that's the way the Iraqi press works, and the stories are true, I see no problem with paying to get the truth out.

You simple Simons don't understand how unique a Free Press truly is.

Iraq and the region are learning.

Bush and Co. have had journalists on the payroll here I don't know why anyone is surprised that this is being done in Iraq. With all the missteps we have made in this war I don't know why a "propaganda" campaign is drawing so much attention. Of course Bush doesn't help things by stating he is "disturbed" by the reports. Why doesn't he just grow a pair and defend this for what it is. A necessity of war. It just goes back to why I think we should begin withdrawal after the elections. We just can't accomplish any more than we have with this weak leadership.