Tehran and hostages

[Lynn7]

Tehran raises the stakes in hostage crisis


Second 'confession' letter released questioning UK's presence in Iraq

Julian Borger and Patrick Wintour
Friday March 30, 2007
The Guardian


The Iranian hostage crisis took a sinister turn last night when Tehran withdrew an earlier offer to release one of the 15 captive sailors and marines and issued a second, strangely-worded letter in her name calling for Britain to withdraw from Iraq.
The letter, signed by Leading Seaman Faye Turney, the only woman in the naval crew seized last Friday, was addressed to "representatives of the House of Commons". Although the letter was handwritten, it was stilted and lacked the personal tone of the first letter, sent to her family the day before. The second letter appeared to have been dictated to her.



"Unfortunately during the course of our mission we entered Iranian waters. Even through our wrongdoing, they have still treated us well and humanely, which I am and always will be eternally grateful," the letter said.
"I ask representatives of the House of Commons after the government had promised this type of incident would not happen again why have they let this occur and why has the government not been questioned over this? Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?"

A No 10 source said: "It is cold and callous to be doing this to a woman at a time when she is being detained in this way."

The letter was released during a day of rising tensions and diverging negotiating positions. Tony Blair said he was still willing to put the whole incident down to a "misunderstanding". "The important thing is we just keep making it very clear to the Iranian government it is not a situation that will be relieved by anything but the unconditional release of all our people," he said.

The UN security council yesterday released a statement expressing its "grave concern" at the capture of the sailors and marines. However, the wording of the statement was weaker than Britain had hoped after council members, notably Russia, balked at a draft that asked for the Britons' immediate release and stated that the navy boats were in Iraqi waters.

The UN moves were part of a British effort focused on building international solidarity and isolating Iran. The EU and an Arab summit in Riyadh were lobbied for statements criticising Iran's actions.

The Iranian response was to dig in. An offer of diplomatic access to the British captives and to release Leading Seaman Turney was dropped.

The head of the country's national security council, Ari Larijani, told state TV that the British government had "miscalculated this issue, and if they follow through with the threats, the case may face a legal path", an apparent reference to a future trial.

Another Iranian news agency quoted the military chief, General Ali Reza Afshar, saying that as a result of Britain's "wrong behaviour" the release of the woman sailor had been "suspended", reversing an undertaking given the day before by the foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki.

Meanwhile, a coastguard officer appeared on television to deliver a rebuttal of Britain's account of Friday's incident, displaying a map and GPS monitors purporting to show that the British navy patrol had been in Iranian waters.

In an ITV interview Mr Blair was asked directly about the treatment of Leading Seaman Turney, who is the mother of a three-year-old girl, and who was shown on Iranian TV on Wednesday "confessing" to having entered Iranian waters.

He said: "I just think it's ... a disgrace when people are used in that way. The longer it goes on, the more the pressure will be stepped up. We are going to have to step up pressure, not just with them in the UN and the European Union, but see what further measures are necessary to get them to understand it's not merely wrong but only going to result in further tension."

Last night the Foreign Office said it was giving "serious consideration" to a confidential note from the Iranian government about the 15 captives. A spokeswoman said the note's contents could not be discussed but would receive a formal response.


__________________________________________________ ___

Gee, I dont' understand why these people are pushing themselves onto the British like this. The British were in the process of beginning to withdraw from Iraq anyway. Could it be they sense weakness in the Brits and decided to push them around a bit?

Let them try that with us and see what happens!!!!!! Oh, wait- our country is pretty limp these days too. The Dems (and the liberal REpubs) may just want to wave a white flag at them in hopes they will make nice. They won't. They are just revving up and hoping they can move in and take over in Iraq, I'm sure.



:rolleyes:

[outsyder]

This is an act of war from the Iranian government and Britain needs more than diplomatic efforts to get their soldiers home. The Iranian government's evidence on the matter has been proven incorrect, and yet they persist.

At this point, Britain should immediately freeze all Iranian assets in their country indefinitely.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I really think people need to be stressing more about this. This is some really bad shit going on right here. Put the fired attorneys at the side for now and concentrate on how we're going to settle this.

[jolanar]

Iran fell for the bait. That's your Q George.

[Vong]

Both Britain and Iran can't get their stories straight...both side says the other is lying where that boat was. So far the evidence points to Britain lying, but who in the Western world will challenge their story?

The pre-cursor to another World War will be miscommunication...

[outsyder]

Don't even fucking start with me. The initial position that IRAN claimed the British soldiers were picked up in was found to actually be coordinates WITHIN IRAQI WATERS. When this news was made public, Iran CHANGED THEIR CLAIMS with new coordinates to reflect a location actually in Iranian waters for a change. The Brits have maintained the same coordinates the whole damn time. The Iranians are blatantly fucking lying about everything, not to mention the speed and execution at which the Brits were picked up suggests the whole thing was planned from the start.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6501555.stm

[Thrizzle]

What's Irans motive here? Start World War 3? That would be a little foolish.

[outsyder]

Any sort of incident would allow them motives to expand their arms programs and give them the moral high road internationally speaking in an attempt to prevent world opinion from turning against them. That would hurt any chances of coalitions being created that might otherwise call for unanimous action against them. Remember how they're supposed to cease uranium enrichment? Still hasn't happened.

Either that, or they believed that the Brits were in Iranian waters and are refusing to embarrass themselves by admitting they were wrong.

[Scarfather]

God, I love Iran.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by outsyder
This is an act of war from the Iranian government and Britain needs more than diplomatic efforts to get their soldiers home. The Iranian government's evidence on the matter has been proven incorrect, and yet they persist.

At this point, Britain should immediately freeze all Iranian assets in their country indefinitely.



Yeah, but as every country has proven, money gets prioritized above human life nowadays. I mean I've been hearing that Britain might be doing some back door negotiations because of their financial ties with Iran!

Also, how they hell are they supposed to get a straight word from that country about the soldiers when the Iranian soldiers who captured the Brits report to the Ayatollah first before the president?!

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
What's Irans motive here? Start World War 3? That would be a little foolish.

Iran has been smuggling weapons through the Persian Gulf for the better part of this war to the Iraqi insurgency. We've been intercepting these shipments for nearly as long.

So far the evidence points to Britain lying, but who in the Western world will challenge their story?

Where do you get your fucking news?

[outsyder]

I'm guessing the Daily Kos.

[Vong]

I haven't been following this story that closely...the last news report I saw on it was one of the hostages confirming Iran's side of the story.

My bad if I'm not as informed as the rest of you...:rolleyes:

[outsyder]

Oh you mean the hostages who could not possibly be under any kind of duress to make these statements and although they are volunteer soldiers, have decided for some reason to criticize the British government in letters released to the public written during their captivity?

[Vong]

The women didn't seem to be under duress.

[free]

Vong, please don't tell me you're that naive.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Vong
The women didn't seem to be under duress.


You're right. They have embraced father Iran as the one true light in the world, shedding the shame and blood of Western imperialism in order to cleanse her soul once and for all, and is honored to wear the traditional headscarf of her newfound culture.

[Vong]

Originally posted by outsyder
You're right. They have embraced father Iran as the one true light in the world, shedding the shame and blood of Western imperialism in order to cleanse her soul once and for all, and is honored to wear the traditional headscarf of her newfound culture.

And you seem to know alot about someone just by looking at them...
Not to mention the hyperbole and sarcasm metre going through the roof!

[outsyder]

Coming from the guy who told me the women didn't look under duress.

[Vong]

Originally posted by outsyder
Coming from the guy who told me the women didn't look under duress.

My observation was on her body language...what can yours be?
"They have embraced father Iran as the one true light in the world..."?
Can you really call this an "observation"?

[outsyder]

I was being obviously sarcastic.

And please open your eyes. They are soldiers of a country vehemently opposed to Iran, more specifically, soldiers involved in a war Iran opposes taking place right next door to them. They were captured and are being held AGAINST THEIR WILL. On top of that, they are women in a country whose social values with respect to women are decidedly lacking and potentially dangerous to them.

If they aren't under duress, then they aren't human.

[Jon Lyrik]

Is it wrong that I want to watch full-out war between Britain and Iran and I'm preparing the popcorn and nachos for when it happens?

[Vong]

Originally posted by outsyder
And please open your eyes. They are soldiers of a country vehemently opposed to Iran, more specifically, soldiers involved in a war Iran opposes taking place right next door to them. They were captured and are being held AGAINST THEIR WILL. On top of that, they are women in a country whose social values with respect to women are decidedly lacking and potentially dangerous to them.

If they aren't under duress, then they aren't human.

How do you know these people are being mistreated? Video has been shown of the soldiers eating food...no signs of mistreatment in the way of tortue or the like. If you say that they could be mistreated off camera, that is not evidence, that is supposition.

"Vehemently opposed to Iran?" That kind of rhetoric to describe the relationship between two countries is grounds for an all out war. Another example of your hyperbolic habit notwithstanding, your choice of words can be alittle more "conciliatory". You'd make a horrible diplomat with that saying shit like that....

There is word from Iran that the women will be released as well. Also, using the Iranian attitude towards women evidence to suggest that this female soldier will be harmed in any way is, again, supposition.

The bottom-line is that there is no clear picture of what happened and is happening now in Iran. Both sides are blowing steam and pointing fingers at each other. We might as well just sit back and watch what they do before we start counting down to World War III.

[outsyder]

Oh, so you don't believe Britain considers Iran to be a part of the "Axis of Evil" given their close relationship with the US? And yes, my choice of words would be terrible if I were a diplomat, but guess what? I'm not. I have no inhibitions towards expression my feelings about Iran and the way they operate both internationally and domestically.

And I do believe I am justified in showing more concern for the captive women, as the basis for which they are held and how they are held, the Iranian legal system, contains systematic prejudice against women and their rights.

Given Iran's rampant use of propaganda within their borders and their deceitful behavior on the international scene, I don't believe I need to give them the benefit of the doubt in any case.

[Lynn7]

MEMBERS STAND UP TO IRAN

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on March 27, 2007.



How should the United States respond to the proliferation of deadly roadside explosives in Iraq manufactured and developed in Iran?

And how to react to the capture by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard of 15 British Marines and sailors in Iraqi territorial waters?

What should we do about Iran’s continued refusal to halt its nuclear enrichment program even in the face of twice-imposed United Nations sanctions?

We should pass — and the president should sign — the Dodd-Lantos bill mandating economic sanctions on any foreign company that aids Iran’s energy industry. Domestic companies are already prohibited from such investments.

This Democratic bill, cosponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Rep. Tom Lantos (Calif.), is a bold piece of legislation that strikes at the core of Iranian vulnerability.

And, in a singular act of courage and dedication to principle, Republican presidential candidate Congressman Duncan Hunter (Calif.) has added his name to the legislation as a cosponsor. Hunter’s action is particularly admirable since the bill is designed to force the Bush administration to impose sanctions passed in the 1990s but disregarded by both presidents, Clinton and Bush, ever since.

The Dodd-Lantos bill would omit the national security waiver Clinton used twice to stop the sanctions from taking effect. The waiver was inserted at the insistence of then-National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (before he started stealing documents in his socks). For his part, President Bush has not even waived the law, he just hasn’t applied it at all.



The original sanctions legislation provided a variety of punishments that the president had to impose on foreign companies that invest in Iran’s oil and gas industries. These ranged from barring their participation in underwriting Treasury issues to prohibiting them from receiving export-import financing, as well as certain government contracts. The sanctions were so effective that they triggered howls of outrage from European governments that objected to what they called “extraterritorial” assertions of American power.

Presumably neither Bush nor Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants to rekindle the war of words with European governments, so they have not applied the sanctions that remain on the books. They probably worry that to do so would shatter Western unity in the face of Iranian aggression and the threat of nuclear-weapons development.

But as Dodd, Lantos, and Hunter all realize, once the president and the secretary of state are stripped of the ability to waive the sanctions, they become a potent tool to stop European companies like Royal Dutch Shell, BNP, Total and Repsol from helping Iran tap its massive oil and gas reserves. The Bush administration people can plead that Congress is forcing their hand and foreign governments would just have to live with the consequences. Like the old Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which forced presidents to deal harshly with the Soviet Union as long as it barred Jewish emigration, the Dodd-Lantos bill would be a very effective tool in bringing Iran to heel.

We tend to overlook how vulnerable Iran is to economic pressure. Blessed with the second largest oil reserves in the world — after Saudi Arabia — its petroleum production has, nevertheless, dropped from 6 million barrels per day under the shah to a mere 3.9 million today. As a result of surging domestic demand — growing at a rate of 10 percent annually — and falling production, Iranian oil and gas revenues are dropping from $55 billion in 2006 to a projected $44 billion this year. Since these funds account for four-fifths of total government revenues, this falloff directly translates into cutbacks on the government subsidies and social programs the government uses to maintain its slender margin of support among the largely young, unemployed, and restive population. Since less than half of the Iranian population is Farsi and there is no ethnic cohesion to hold the nation together, subsidies like that which keeps gasoline at 35 cents per gallon are vital cogs in the regime’s bid for stability.

The U.S. can undermine the regime’s ability to rule and trigger its overthrow by imposing tough economic sanctions, and nothing makes more sense than the legislation Dodd, Lantos, and Hunter are urging on the Congress.


__________________________________________________ _

I haven't seen that sanctions have worked (that I can think of) but I thought some of the information in this article was interesting.

[Thrizzle]

I just watched Syriana last night and i've never been more convinced that war with Iran is an inevitability. :D

[Lynn7]

I just saw a headline but didn't read the article that Iran is considering trying these British soldiers. We know how fair any trial will be.....this is going to be getting pretty ugly,

[shoe1985]

The sad thing is that when we go to war with Iran, there won't be any funding for it. The Dems are going to have most of the money to Iraq stopped, so do you think they will let money go to Iran? Bush really needs to push for peace talks. The UN needs to step in, and start doing something.

I honestly don't believe things are going to turn out well because of this. It is similar to WW1. Germany was using the U-boats, hit a ship with Americans on it, and we went to war. Now Iran took these people hostage, and we feel obligated to fight for them because we involved them in our fight.

I just hope those who feel this is necessary are going to enlist. I am sick of hearing people say they feel we should be in war because this is for our freedoms. Speak for yourself, if you feel it is for your freedom, enlist, and fight for your freedoms. There is no reason why poor kids are sent over to fight for the rich, who sit at home on their computers, and say how it is for their freedoms.

[Lynn7]

Shoe, no one is being sent over. It is a volunteer military right now. I don't think we are wanting to go to war with Iran but they are certainly tring to go out of their way to pick a fight with us. They have been providing the IEDs that are harming our soldiers and they are the ones who have proclaiming their right to use nuclear "energy" They advocate for the destruction of Israel and the US. What have we done to them? We are not at fault here.

And the UK was in the process of pulling out of Iraq. They have been saying so publicly for a long time. Blair has been ultra criticized for being involved in Iraq and now was pulling people out. And how is the UK thanked? By taking their 15 soliders as hostages and saying they were in Iranian waters. I choose to beleive what the UK says since the Iranian president is a madman and a liar. And I will say that it is HE that is evil, not President Bush. Our president conducted a precision war and took out Hussien and let our soldiers stay to keep the peace as a new government formed (and also to find and catch bad guys). The Iranian president acts to destroy the nation building in Iraq. He calls ofor the destruction of Israel and the US and he captures UK soldiers, He is what evil really is.

Anyway, if we get pulled into a war with Iran it will not be of our choosing. It will be of our nation needing to defend ourselves. I don't see us going over into that country except maybe to drop some bombs. and we won't want to do that because they are nuclear now. That is why this could get messy. But we are not bringing this about- they are.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Shoe, no one is being sent over. It is a volunteer military right now. I don't think we are wanting to go to war with Iran but they are certainly tring to go out of their way to pick a fight with us. They have been providing the IEDs that are harming our soldiers and they are the ones who have proclaiming their right to use nuclear "energy" They advocate for the destruction of Israel and the US. What have we done to them? We are not at fault here.

And the UK was in the process of pulling out of Iraq. They have been saying so publicly for a long time. Blair has been ultra criticized for being involved in Iraq and now was pulling people out. And how is the UK thanked? By taking their 15 soliders as hostages and saying they were in Iranian waters. I choose to beleive what the UK says since the Iranian president is a madman and a liar. And I will say that it is HE that is evil, not President Bush. Our president conducted a precision war and took out Hussien and let our soldiers stay to keep the peace as a new government formed (and also to find and catch bad guys). The Iranian president acts to destroy the nation building in Iraq. He calls ofor the destruction of Israel and the US and he captures UK soldiers, He is what evil really is.

Anyway, if we get pulled into a war with Iran it will not be of our choosing. It will be of our nation needing to defend ourselves. I don't see us going over into that country except maybe to drop some bombs. and we won't want to do that because they are nuclear now. That is why this could get messy. But we are not bringing this about- they are.

Agreed. We've gone down this road with Iran before. I hate war, and I think if diplomacy is possible then we should try our damndest to find a way out, but war with Iran really seems like a definite right now.

[Vong]

Originally posted by outsyder
Oh, so you don't believe Britain considers Iran to be a part of the "Axis of Evil" given their close relationship with the US?

No, I don't believe they consider Iran apart of the "Axis of Evil". That phrase was coined by Bush, and remains apart of his and the American media's diction. Just because they are friends with the U.S. doesn't mean they have to share the same rhetoric. Britain, like it should, is taking a diplomatic position to a situation that calls for nothing more. If Iran sees these soldiers in their waters, they have sovereignty rights to detain the military personel with charges of trespassing. Unless these soldiers are treated wrong, there is no cause for military intervention. Whether or not these soldiers were violating Iran's waters should be left to a third unpartial party to determine the evidence, rather than both sides pointing fingers at each other claiming the other is to blame.

[Thrizzle]

Well, if they were kidnapped in Iraqi waters it could be considered an act of war i suppose. And then NATO would lay the smack down. It would be nice to finally have allies other than Britain, Poland, and Paraguay.

And WW3 might be a good thing for humanity. The Earth can't keep sustaining this large human population, so a billion or so human lives killed in a theater of war such as the middle east (which is mostly desert and void of substantial amounts of plant and animal life) or Asia might help the earth and humanity in the long run. Plus there are obvious technological boosts associated with all out warfare.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Well, if they were kidnapped in Iraqi waters it could be considered an act of war i suppose. And then NATO would lay the smack down. It would be nice to finally have allies other than Britain, Poland, and Paraguay.

And WW3 might be a good thing for humanity. The Earth can't keep sustaining this large human population, so a billion or so human lives killed in a theater of war such as the middle east (which is mostly desert and void of substantial amounts of plant and animal life) or Asia might help the earth and humanity in the long run. Plus there are obvious technological boosts associated with all out warfare.


I don't know what makes me feel more sick: the fact that you just said that, or the fact that I agree with every word of it.

[Criminal Rock]

good lord...

[electriclite]

Bring on the influenza.... oh wait, they already have.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
I don't know what makes me feel more sick: the fact that you just said that, or the fact that I agree with every word of it.

Darfur for the win!

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Shoe, no one is being sent over. It is a volunteer military right now. I don't think we are wanting to go to war with Iran but they are certainly tring to go out of their way to pick a fight with us. They have been providing the IEDs that are harming our soldiers and they are the ones who have proclaiming their right to use nuclear "energy" They advocate for the destruction of Israel and the US. What have we done to them? We are not at fault here.

And the UK was in the process of pulling out of Iraq. They have been saying so publicly for a long time. Blair has been ultra criticized for being involved in Iraq and now was pulling people out. And how is the UK thanked? By taking their 15 soliders as hostages and saying they were in Iranian waters. I choose to beleive what the UK says since the Iranian president is a madman and a liar. And I will say that it is HE that is evil, not President Bush. Our president conducted a precision war and took out Hussien and let our soldiers stay to keep the peace as a new government formed (and also to find and catch bad guys). The Iranian president acts to destroy the nation building in Iraq. He calls ofor the destruction of Israel and the US and he captures UK soldiers, He is what evil really is.

Anyway, if we get pulled into a war with Iran it will not be of our choosing. It will be of our nation needing to defend ourselves. I don't see us going over into that country except maybe to drop some bombs. and we won't want to do that because they are nuclear now. That is why this could get messy. But we are not bringing this about- they are.

Do you know anything about the Middle East? For years, decades, we have been pushing them like slaves. We go into their country and expect them to obey by our rules. We have our country, they have theirs. Maybe if we didn't meddle in so many people's business, we wouldn't of had a 9/11, or this Iraq war.

Also, I know it is a volunteer military, but if all of these people say, "We should go to war," or, "The soldiers are fighting for our freedoms," they are not fighting for your freedoms, they are fighting for theirs. If you support war, you should be fighting in it. I don't agree with war unless it is certain we must be fighting in it. Whatever happened to Afghanistan? Isn't that the place that hit us? I am still confused about why we went to war with Iraq? Oh wait, that is right oil. Well it looks like it worked, gas has gone up to $2.80 here.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Do you know anything about the Middle East? For years, decades, we have been pushing them like slaves. We go into their country and expect them to obey by our rules. We have our country, they have theirs. Maybe if we didn't meddle in so many people's business, we wouldn't of had a 9/11, or this Iraq war.

Also, I know it is a volunteer military, but if all of these people say, "We should go to war," or, "The soldiers are fighting for our freedoms," they are not fighting for your freedoms, they are fighting for theirs. If you support war, you should be fighting in it. I don't agree with war unless it is certain we must be fighting in it. Whatever happened to Afghanistan? Isn't that the place that hit us? I am still confused about why we went to war with Iraq? Oh wait, that is right oil. Well it looks like it worked, gas has gone up to $2.80 here.

Yeah I do know about the Middle East. My husband's parents were born there and there are still relatives that live there.

I do think we used to meddle there 30 or more years ago but not in recent years. Our countires need each other to survive. We need their oil and they need our money for their oil. Their oil is worthless to them except that it can be converted to cash.

We were minding our own business at the time of 9-11. Bin Laden had been angry about our "occupation" in Saudi Arabia years before because he thought we were infidels on the Saudi land. His big gripe was also with the Saudi royal family from what I understand. But by the way, let's not give Bin Laden any credibiblty. He is simply Son of Sam, or Jack the Ripper on a grand scale. He is mad, evil and uses others to sacrifice their lives while he fiercely guards his own precious life.

The popular view right now is that we should be fighting in Afghanistan cause that is where the terrorists are. Well the terrorists are all over but weren't most of the 9-11 terrorists from Saudi Arabia? Using that logic, we should be there fighting them. The terrorists belong to no country. They are all over the place (even in the UK and the US).

The reason we went into Iraq was because all through the Clinton years, Hussein thumbed his nose at all the conditions he agreed to Bush Sr. when we let him remain in power after his Kuwait invasion. Clinton let him get away with breaking sanctions, with firing at our planes and by his kicking out the weapons inspectors. After 9-11 we HAD to address his insolent disregard of the sanctions but even then President Bush gave him a thousand chances up to about 48 hours before we invaded. Bush was practically begging Hussein to reconsider. Hussein refused. What were we supposed to do? Sheepishly back away and say never mind? It makes no sense. Hussein is the reason we went into Iraq. We could do nothing else.

And thank God because with his two sons coming along (sadistic torturers of innocents) who knows what their leadership in Iraq would have brought to the world? We can't even imagine.

[EVILxxx]

Shoe did you enlist after 911?

[Thrizzle]

I was being sarcastic in my previous post. While all out war might bring about great progress in a short period of time, like WW2 did, we can circumvent all that destruction and death if we get out of this ridiculous mode of thinking. We have to break out of this culture of fear; foreign policy isnt good vs evil; war isnt inevitable, and as long as we depend on oil we'll be slaves to it.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I do think we used to meddle there 30 or more years ago but not in recent years. Our countires need each other to survive. We need their oil and they need our money for their oil. Their oil is worthless to them except that it can be converted to cash.
Unless you consider an invasion "meddling". I have to disagree with you. While it's true we do need their oil (not want, but need), they dont need our money. Every developing country needs their oil, inlcuding the biggest, China.


We were minding our own business at the time of 9-11. Bin Laden had been angry about our "occupation" in Saudi Arabia years before because he thought we were infidels on the Saudi land. His big gripe was also with the Saudi royal family from what I understand. But by the way, let's not give Bin Laden any credibiblty. He is simply Son of Sam, or Jack the Ripper on a grand scale. He is mad, evil and uses others to sacrifice their lives while he fiercely guards his own precious life.
Oil is the reason we are so close to Saudi Arabia, and we do influence their country because we need that supply to keep coming. Corrupt and oppressive Imams in Saudi Arabia keep the supply of oil to us safe. This idea that Bin Laden and the terrorists are doing what they do because they're evil is ridiculous and simple minded. This notion of good vs evil is pure fiction and you can't run foreign policy like that.


The popular view right now is that we should be fighting in Afghanistan cause that is where the terrorists are. Well the terrorists are all over but weren't most of the 9-11 terrorists from Saudi Arabia? Using that logic, we should be there fighting them. The terrorists belong to no country. They are all over the place (even in the UK and the US).

I believe the main reason we went into Afghanistan was to find Bin Laden and bring him to justice. It's true that Al Qaeda is spread out, but if you asked intelligence agents in 2003 where Al Qaeda currently had influence, they wouldnt say Iraq.


The reason we went into Iraq was because all through the Clinton years, Hussein thumbed his nose at all the conditions he agreed to Bush Sr. when we let him remain in power after his Kuwait invasion. Clinton let him get away with breaking sanctions, with firing at our planes and by his kicking out the weapons inspectors. After 9-11 we HAD to address his insolent disregard of the sanctions but even then President Bush gave him a thousand chances up to about 48 hours before we invaded. Bush was practically begging Hussein to reconsider. Hussein refused. What were we supposed to do? Sheepishly back away and say never mind? It makes no sense. Hussein is the reason we went into Iraq. We could do nothing else.

Clinton didnt let him get away with breaking sanctions and kicking out weapons inspectors. He bombed Iraq in 1998 to great effect. The result? ...Did we find WMD's in Iraq when we went in?
And for you to suggest that Bush begged Hussein to give into his demands and wanted to avoid war is irresponsible and just plain incorrect. All the evidence points to the contrary. Its not even worth the page of writing it would take to detail all the evidence because we've been over this a hundred times before.

[Lynn7]

If there is anyway to go back and look at the nightly newsreports leading up to the Iraq war I would encouraage you to view them all and see that what I am saying is true. I was getting frustrated with how long it took Pres. Bush to give up on Hussein. You just have to look at Bush's personality to see how he is. He tries to find common ground on everything. Ann Coulter is bullsh*t at him right now for how accomadating he has been to the Dems. He always tries to find a nice solution to avoid problems.

Iraq is the country that invaded Kuwait. Iraq agreed to the sanctions. Iraq broke the agreements.

Iran has been helping insurgents in Iraq. Iran has been calling for the destruction of Israel. Iran has been trying to provoke the world by developing nuclear "energy". Iran took British hostages. We are not seeking any of this. and it is outrageous and unprecendented that our own media is constantly criticizing Bush for the way the war is turning out and yet they are strangely silent about Iraq and Syria's huge role in keeping Iraq unstable and they are actually maiming and killing our US soldiers. It is almost like the media and the elite are trying to say "Don't hurt us! We are on your side- Bush is evil!"

You talk about a culture of fear. Why shouldn't we be afraid that there are people who are seeking ways to kill hundreds of thousands of us by contaminating our water and food supply. To not be afraid is to be in the dark. This is an enemy that is not afraid to destroy the very world to kill its perceived enemies. People criticize Christianity for its "narrow minded" views and yet they will side with these terrorists who would and do kill gay people, and will kill their own women if they have been raped. How can this stuff be defended? Why are peopel encouraged to try to work things out with these terrorists? It is impossible.

[shoe1985]

Lynn, if you feel so confident about a war, why not join then? I don't understand why you would rather send someone else to fight for your freedoms, instead of fight for them yourself? Can you please enlighten me why you won't fight for them?

[Danger^Cart]

Originally posted by Vong
the last news report I saw on it was one of the hostages confirming Iran's side of the story.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH AHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAH AHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH....

Unlawful detainee Faye Turney
"I am writing to you as a British service person who has been sent to Iraq, sacrificed due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments.

No. That wasn't written under duress. I'm sure that, in a letter to her family, such wording could be considered absolutely natural. Hell, I write like that all the time, with or without a gun muzzle shoved against my skull, or the promise of persecution by a foreign government. You must dread April 1st, because you are beyond gullible if you think any of those sailors testements aren't coerced in some fashion or another.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Vong
the last news report I saw on it was one of the hostages confirming Iran's side of the story.

Let's try to phrase this in a way that will come across more obvious:


A hostage confirmed their captors' position on why they took them hostage, while they're still their hostages.


Smell the fishes yet?

[shoe1985]

It is similar to how we are holding Iraq hostage right now. Oh yeah they have WMD, which has not yet been proven. So, lets keep them until we find something to do with them.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by shoe1985
It is similar to how we are holding Iraq hostage right now. Oh yeah they have WMD, which has not yet been proven. So, lets keep them until we find something to do with them.

Wow you nailed it alright. :rolleyes:
America doing it's best to keep a country stable amidst an impending civil war is completely synonymous with what Iran is doing.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Darfur for the win!


Ok, I'm not saying I want a war, I was just agreeing that there are too many fucking people, that's all.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Wow you nailed it alright. :rolleyes:
America doing it's best to keep a country stable amidst an impending civil war is completely synonymous with what Iran is doing.

Do you really know why the Iraqis are angry? Well the ones who are? They don't want American ways pushed on them. Not everyone believes the same as us, wow isn't that amazing.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Ok, I'm not saying I want a war, I was just agreeing that there are too many fucking people, that's all.

Well hon that's what tsunami's and influenza outbreaks are for. The earth has its own fully functional immune system, she don't need our assistance.

[Thrizzle]

Yea, unless we're Earth's AIDS. I think i saw a twilight zone episode like that once. Oh no wait it was the one where everyone had pig faces....my mistake.

[Beenthere]

I'll be laconic: Bullying.

And if you are a lucky bully you can get a win-win situation.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Do you really know why the Iraqis are angry? Well the ones who are? They don't want American ways pushed on them. Not everyone believes the same as us, wow isn't that amazing.

Teh Iraqis have supported our being there. They came out to vote at the risk of their lives to support our being there. Who are the ones who don't want us there? Hussiens old people who are mad at being out of power. We let most of them go hoping they would blend in to the new country-probably not a great idea but a hopeful idea that did not work. And yet, if the Iranian and Syrian goverment were not supporting the insurgency and supplying explosives and money etc, who knows how nice it might be there. Most of the country is quiet but there are a few areas (in Baghdad especially) that are unstable.

Why don't I fight in the war? I am not in the age range. If it gets to the point where we are invaded or etc, then I will fight along with everyone else. In Israel it is mandatory that every man and woman serves a few years in the military. Is that what you want or do you want to keep it all volunteer? Bush wants to keep it volunteer but Rangel a Dem wants the draft for fairness. Be careful who you vote for next time if you don't want to fight.....The Dems might not want to be in Iraq but they will be in other places like DAfur..... I think there will be a time when we will all miss President Bush.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Teh Iraqis have supported our being there. They came out to vote at the risk of their lives to support our being there. Who are the ones who don't want us there? Hussiens old people who are mad at being out of power. We let most of them go hoping they would blend in to the new country-probably not a great idea but a hopeful idea that did not work. And yet, if the Iranian and Syrian goverment were not supporting the insurgency and supplying explosives and money etc, who knows how nice it might be there. Most of the country is quiet but there are a few areas (in Baghdad especially) that are unstable.

Why don't I fight in the war? I am not in the age range. If it gets to the point where we are invaded or etc, then I will fight along with everyone else. In Israel it is mandatory that every man and woman serves a few years in the military. Is that what you want or do you want to keep it all volunteer? Bush wants to keep it volunteer but Rangel a Dem wants the draft for fairness. Be careful who you vote for next time if you don't want to fight.....The Dems might not want to be in Iraq but they will be in other places like DAfur..... I think there will be a time when we will all miss President Bush.


There are plenty of people who WANTED us there but don't anymore. I fail to see how we've made things better. Yes, I am aware of the "good" things we have done in Iraq, but in what way have they outweighed the consequences? We've spent billions of dollars that we don't even have on this war. When our closest ally looks like it might have to take action in Iran, how will we be there to help them? I know it's hard, but we had to do the exact same thing in Vietnam. Imagine how hard it was for us back then, and compare it to today. We've only lost 3,000 men as opposed to the 300,000 men we lost in Vietnam. It sucks, but we're going to have to suck it up and leave. We did all those years ago, and it sucked, but it was something that we SHOULD have learned from. Unfortunately, with guys like Bush, Cheney, and McCain it takes a while for things to sink in.

Oh, and I seriously doubt Rangel is pro-draft. He's probably just trying to be anti-war in a way that will get him attention since he's only a congressman and nobody cares about congressmen.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
There are plenty of people who WANTED us there but don't anymore. I fail to see how we've made things better. Yes, I am aware of the "good" things we have done in Iraq, but in what way have they outweighed the consequences? We've spent billions of dollars that we don't even have on this war. When our closest ally looks like it might have to take action in Iran, how will we be there to help them? I know it's hard, but we had to do the exact same thing in Vietnam. Imagine how hard it was for us back then, and compare it to today. We've only lost 3,000 men as opposed to the 300,000 men we lost in Vietnam. It sucks, but we're going to have to suck it up and leave. We did all those years ago, and it sucked, but it was something that we SHOULD have learned from. Unfortunately, with guys like Bush, Cheney, and McCain it takes a while for things to sink in.

Oh, and I seriously doubt Rangel is pro-draft. He's probably just trying to be anti-war in a way that will get him attention since he's only a congressman and nobody cares about congressmen.

We have done a lot of good in that country. I know you probably don't watch Fox News cause you think it is biased but that is one of the only places you can see the positives we have done over there- the children that come up and hug the soldiers, the schools that have been revamped etc etc. On the other channels you only see the bad and the ugly.

Of course everyone is tired of this war. It would be nice for us to bring the soldiers home but the fact is that the country is not ready to take over yet.To leave now would plunge that country into tragedy and possible take over by the terrorists or Iran. We are being pushed to get out before it makes any sense.

Maybe we would've been better off finacially if the rest of the world weren't afraid of being with us but they are all afraid of the terrorists. They are afraid to stand with us in case the terrorists take action against them. look at what happened to Spain and the threats to any who had anything to do with us. But what they don't realize is that without the US they are all sunk anyway. If we go down they will go down really fast without any hope. But in the meantime, it is sad the way the terrorists are effectively using terror to frighten and subdue everyone. And as I said before, I think that is also what is behind the liberal hatred of Bush- we hate Bush so we aren't so bad-don't hurt us! It will not work.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Teh Iraqis have supported our being there. They came out to vote at the risk of their lives to support our being there. Who are the ones who don't want us there? Hussiens old people who are mad at being out of power. We let most of them go hoping they would blend in to the new country-probably not a great idea but a hopeful idea that did not work. And yet, if the Iranian and Syrian goverment were not supporting the insurgency and supplying explosives and money etc, who knows how nice it might be there. Most of the country is quiet but there are a few areas (in Baghdad especially) that are unstable.

Why don't I fight in the war? I am not in the age range. If it gets to the point where we are invaded or etc, then I will fight along with everyone else. In Israel it is mandatory that every man and woman serves a few years in the military. Is that what you want or do you want to keep it all volunteer? Bush wants to keep it volunteer but Rangel a Dem wants the draft for fairness. Be careful who you vote for next time if you don't want to fight.....The Dems might not want to be in Iraq but they will be in other places like DAfur..... I think there will be a time when we will all miss President Bush.

We have done a lot of good, but I know they are ready for us to leave now. Having friends over there, they feel they did their duty. I have a friend who has been over their three times and about to go over again. These people can't keep doing this.

Well, if people want war, they should be in the military fighting for the reasons. I am for a draft though. If I was to be drafted, I would fight for my freedoms. I don't agree with Bush at all.

As for Fox News, it is considered by many to be the most biased news channel on tv. Now everyone will watch what benefits them the most. I like CNN, but not everything they say is the whole truth, just the way to paint it in a positive light for their audience. Remember new channels want big ratings too, and know their audience.

[Lynn7]

If you are for a draft you will be glad to hear that Murtha ( a Democrat) is pushing for the draft again, according to CNN.

Fox is biased conservatively and CNN is biased liberally so they even each other out. I will watch CNN from time to time to see what the other side is showing but if you only watch CNN you are not getting all the news. I watched only CNN for many years (my cable company did not get Fox News) and I was frustrated at how they never showed my political party's point of view. I am so glad that Fox News is around now!

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I am so glad that Fox News is around now!

Every time someone praises Faux News, an angel dies...

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
And as I said before, I think that is also what is behind the liberal hatred of Bush- we hate Bush so we aren't so bad-don't hurt us! It will not work.

Why is it always liberals with you? Just go to your local bookstore, there tons of books written by conservative leaders angry with the administration and it's handling of the war. If you want to defend the president, don't just attack the Democrats, but everyone who attacks him.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
If there is anyway to go back and look at the nightly newsreports leading up to the Iraq war I would encouraage you to view them all and see that what I am saying is true. I was getting frustrated with how long it took Pres. Bush to give up on Hussein. You just have to look at Bush's personality to see how he is. He tries to find common ground on everything.

If they were pleading with Saddam, why did they ask the CIA to find a link between 9/11 and Iraq, why were they asking to find evidence to support war, why did they pull out shoddy intelligence from corrupt Iraqi's seeking asylum to make a case for war while they discarded the mountain of evidence that showed Iraq had abandoned their WMD programs. They wanted this war from the start. Period. End of story.


You talk about a culture of fear. Why shouldn't we be afraid that there are people who are seeking ways to kill hundreds of thousands of us by contaminating our water and food supply. To not be afraid is to be in the dark. This is an enemy that is not afraid to destroy the very world to kill its perceived enemies. People criticize Christianity for its "narrow minded" views and yet they will side with these terrorists who would and do kill gay people, and will kill their own women if they have been raped. How can this stuff be defended? Why are peopel encouraged to try to work things out with these terrorists? It is impossible. [/B]
Why not be afraid? Because the chances of being killed by a terrorist are miniscule, and it's irrational to be afraid. And even if it got to the point where terrorists actually gained enough power to threaten this country (their recruitment has never been better apparently), what would President Bush do? Invade Mongolia? IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH AL QAEDA OR 9/11!
No one defends terrorism or sympathises with the terrorists, we should hunt and kill them. Most people just believe that Bush has done a horrible job doing it.

You seem to think that sending our soldiers off to die in a far away land so the Republican party that sits comfortably at home will be a little less afraid of terrorists hurting them..... is brave and courageous. You'll have to explain that to me.

[shoe1985]

****News Flash****

Iran has let the British soldiers go. So, Lynn should we still go to war with them? It doesn't seem to me they want war, they just want to be free. Do you honestly think they would get a nuclear bomb, or missile in the US?

There is no reason to live in fear that we will be attacked again. If people do their jobs correctly, we should be safe.

[outsyder]

What????


Even if all the government officials were doing their jobs at peak performance, it would still be relatively easy to detonate a bomb at nearly any public site in the US.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Wow, the British were able to handle in a week something we probably would have gone to war over. In the end, the U.S. looks the worst, not Iran or the UK.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by outsyder
What????


Even if all the government officials were doing their jobs at peak performance, it would still be relatively easy to detonate a bomb at nearly any public site in the US.

Maybe, maybe not. They did install those machines to detect radioactive material, and if made correctly, they should find it.

We think it is easy, but remember, we are always being watched. The CIA and FBI know what we are doing at all times.

[EVILxxx]

Apparently Iran worked the kinks out of their GPS's.

[Criminal Rock]

Shoe... what you're saying is impossible. Not ever, will a stable government be able to watch over every single citizen that belongs to it... not even... and what do you mean by "doing their jobs correctly"? Most government agencies ARE doing their jobs correctly, but its hardly ever enough to stop the worlds tragedies.

we don't live in the Minority Report world, shoe, people aren't as predicable as you'd like them to be...

And saying we will never be attacked again is bullshit. As outsyder previously said, its relatively easy to detonate a bomb in the US. Just look at Iraq; a place far more secured then any state in the US and they receive bombings almost every day. All it takes is a strong will.

I wouldn't be surprised if America is attacked again in the next five years.

*edit* bad grammer...

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Shoe... what you're saying is impossible. Not ever, will a stable government be able to watch over every single citizen that belongs to it... not even... and what do you mean by "doing their jobs correctly"?

Not necessarily. If what Bush says is correct, and God wanted him to be in office, then God could very well work for the White House. Just a theory.

[EVILxxx]

Ahmadinejad announcement came at the end of a lengthy news conference on Wednesday in which he said the detainees had violated Iran's territorial waters and called their release "a gift to the British people."
"I declare that the people of Iran and the government of Iran -- in full power to place on trial the military people -- to give amnesty and pardon to these 15 people and I announce their freedom and their return to the people of Britain," Ahmadinejad said.

Jackass.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Lynn7
If you are for a draft you will be glad to hear that Murtha ( a Democrat) is pushing for the draft again, according to CNN.

Fox is biased conservatively and CNN is biased liberally so they even each other out. I will watch CNN from time to time to see what the other side is showing but if you only watch CNN you are not getting all the news. I watched only CNN for many years (my cable company did not get Fox News) and I was frustrated at how they never showed my political party's point of view. I am so glad that Fox News is around now!

Don't stop watching CNN completely! There is Glenn Beck show that's IMO getting more and more competitive with the best Fox is offering.

Oooppss, an angel died... :(

As for the Iranian cheap shots asshole do we even need to comment on it? International banditism in action...

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Shoe... what you're saying is impossible. Not ever, will a stable government be able to watch over every single citizen that belongs to it... not even... and what do you mean by "doing their jobs correctly"? Most government agencies ARE doing their jobs correctly, but its hardly ever enough to stop the worlds tragedies.

we don't live in the Minority Report world, shoe, people aren't as predicable as you'd like them to be...

And saying we will never be attacked again is bullshit. As outsyder previously said, its relatively easy to detonate a bomb in the US. Just look at Iraq; a place far more secured then any state in the US and they receive bombings almost every day. All it takes is a strong will.

I wouldn't be surprised if America is attacked again in the next five years.

*edit* bad grammer...

Should we have been attacked on 9/11? Well if Bush and comp had did their jobs, nope. Clinton left him the paper work on Bin Laden and comp, yet Bush ignored it. Clinton tried to get Bin Laden, he listened to his advisers too much.

This shows that peace talks still work. I don't see anything wrong with Iran did when they gave the British soldiers amnesty. We don't know the whole story, never will, but you have to give them credit for letting them go.

As for being attacked again in the next 5 years, I doubt it.

[Thrizzle]

Yea, CNN is the liberal counterpart to FOX News.

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/cnn-pelosi-syria.jpg

FOX News has no equal.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Yea, CNN is the liberal counterpart to FOX News.



FOX News has no equal.

You killed my appetite. Was it really necessary to post that image?

I start to believe that Devil Was A Woman.

Shalom, everybody.

[Thrizzle]

It was so necessary. Look at her, LOOK AT HEEEEER!

[Criminal Rock]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Should we have been attacked on 9/11? Well if Bush and comp had did their jobs, nope. Clinton left him the paper work on Bin Laden and comp, yet Bush ignored it. Clinton tried to get Bin Laden, he listened to his advisers too much.

This shows that peace talks still work. I don't see anything wrong with Iran did when they gave the British soldiers amnesty. We don't know the whole story, never will, but you have to give them credit for letting them go.

No, of course we shouldn't have been attacked. No sane person would want that to happen to anyone, for any reason... And you can play the blame game all you want to, but it doesn't hide the fact that Al Qaeda was the mastermind behind 9/11. So, your whole "Bush ignored the truth" argument is a moot one. It was probably going to happen sooner or later... and besides, who's to say that Bush (or anyone else) could have prevented this attack, even with a preemptive strategy of our own?...

As for being attacked again in the next 5 years, I doubt it.

I doubt it too, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were to happen again.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Why is it always liberals with you? Just go to your local bookstore, there tons of books written by conservative leaders angry with the administration and it's handling of the war. If you want to defend the president, don't just attack the Democrats, but everyone who attacks him.

The liberals (not the leaders) are against Bush for the reasons I said. The liberal leaders are against him because they want to be in power so they want to bash him any chance they get AND they also want to show the terrorists that they are willing to talk and do business, hoping the terrorists won't hurt them cause they see themselves as good.

Not many Republicans are against Bush- most are mad at him for his handling of the immigration issue. Most are mad at him for being too nice with the Dems.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The liberals (not the leaders) are against Bush for the reasons I said. The liberal leaders are against him because they want to be in power so they want to bash him any chance they get AND they also want to show the terrorists that they are willing to talk and do business, hoping the terrorists won't hurt them cause they see themselves as good.

Not many Republicans are against Bush- most are mad at him for his handling of the immigration issue. Most are mad at him for being too nice with the Dems.

I think I have some sort of muscle disease. Every time you say something, my hand automatically slaps my forehead.

Fact is, the war has been the main criticism of these conservatives. Guys like Hagel have been attacking Bush for one reason: their own political advancement. Hagel has actually implied that Bush could be an impeachable president, yet you have never criticized him. Rather, you keep on with the Democrats.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
If they were pleading with Saddam, why did they ask the CIA to find a link between 9/11 and Iraq, why were they asking to find evidence to support war, why did they pull out shoddy intelligence from corrupt Iraqi's seeking asylum to make a case for war while they discarded the mountain of evidence that showed Iraq had abandoned their WMD programs. They wanted this war from the start. Period. End of story.


Why not be afraid? Because the chances of being killed by a terrorist are miniscule, and it's irrational to be afraid. And even if it got to the point where terrorists actually gained enough power to threaten this country (their recruitment has never been better apparently), what would President Bush do? Invade Mongolia? IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH AL QAEDA OR 9/11!
No one defends terrorism or sympathises with the terrorists, we should hunt and kill them. Most people just believe that Bush has done a horrible job doing it.

You seem to think that sending our soldiers off to die in a far away land so the Republican party that sits comfortably at home will be a little less afraid of terrorists hurting them..... is brave and courageous. You'll have to explain that to me.

They had info from the UK that all the Senate and House saw too that there was evidence of Hussein and nukes. they gave Bush the authority to go to this war.

The chances of a particular person getting killed by a terrorist may be miniscule but you forget they have been looking at ways to poison our water and our food supply. They also seek to destroy our economy. One thing that is forgotten is that after 9-11 our economy sank. People were afraid to travel at all. Everything was disrupted. Thanks to Bush's quick acting we managed to recover and have been OK since. Like Dennis Miller says- the way to judge Bush is that we have been ok for the last 6 years. That is pretty darn good. We went to Iraq and Afghanistan and have kept the terrorists busy. If someone else had been in charge we might have had the worst 6 years in history. We will never know of course.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Don't stop watching CNN completely! There is Glenn Beck show that's IMO getting more and more competitive with the best Fox is offering.

Oooppss, an angel died... :(

As for the Iranian cheap shots asshole do we even need to comment on it? International banditism in action...

I enjoy Glenn Beck but that is on the CNN Headline News not the main CNN. Doubtful his show could survive there. :)

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Should we have been attacked on 9/11? Well if Bush and comp had did their jobs, nope. Clinton left him the paper work on Bin Laden and comp, yet Bush ignored it. Clinton tried to get Bin Laden, he listened to his advisers too much.

This shows that peace talks still work. I don't see anything wrong with Iran did when they gave the British soldiers amnesty. We don't know the whole story, never will, but you have to give them credit for letting them go.

As for being attacked again in the next 5 years, I doubt it.

Yes, Clinton was so effective with Bin Laden that Sandy Berger had to make mulitple trips to take out documents to be destroyed (that had not been archived). We will never be able to know ALL the great things Clinton did because those documents have been removed. Wonder what was in those that they did not want us to see???:rolleyes:

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Wow, the British were able to handle in a week something we probably would have gone to war over. In the end, the U.S. looks the worst, not Iran or the UK.

You don't actually think the UK soldiers got released because of anyone's handling do you? This was just the beginning. This guy was flexing his muscles and everyone knows who had the power here and it was not the UK or the US. Iran held ALL the cards cause everyone is too afraid to start a war with them and they know it. If they gave those soldiers up it was probably from pressure from other middle east countries who are getting fed up with this guy.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
I think I have some sort of muscle disease. Every time you say something, my hand automatically slaps my forehead.

Fact is, the war has been the main criticism of these conservatives. Guys like Hagel have been attacking Bush for one reason: their own political advancement. Hagel has actually implied that Bush could be an impeachable president, yet you have never criticized him. Rather, you keep on with the Democrats.

Let me agree with you about Hagel. He is thinking he is advancing his career but he is not. I have zero respect for this guy and I don't know anyone who does.

It is so easy to slam Bush. Everyone voted to go to war- the country wanted it too. Now that people are deciding they have had enough they slam Bush and yet everyone knows we can not withdraw from Iraq without grave consequences but Bush is the one who has to follow through and be responsible- the others are cowards for slinking away from what they know is right. We promised Iraq- if we let them down NO ONE will ever trust our word again. Our country would be sunk!!!!

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You don't actually think the UK soldiers got released because of anyone's handling do you? This was just the beginning. This guy was flexing his muscles and everyone knows who had the power here and it was not the UK or the US. Iran held ALL the cards cause everyone is too afraid to start a war with them and they know it. If they gave those soldiers up it was probably from pressure from other middle east countries who are getting fed up with this guy.

Have you BEEN to England? The people there are pretty damn charming. Imagine how charming their diplomats are.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yes, Clinton was so effective with Bin Laden that Sandy Berger had to make mulitple trips to take out documents to be destroyed (that had not been archived). We will never be able to know ALL the great things Clinton did because those documents have been removed. Wonder what was in those that they did not want us to see???:rolleyes:

The documents he took were copies, not originals. He's been investigated, he's testified, he did nothing worth prosecuting.

And as for the UK and their evidence, i have three words: Downing Street Memo.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

It is fact, coming from the British government, contradicting everything you've been saying. Why can't you accept the truth?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Why can't you accept the truth?

The sad thing is, President Bush hasn't even answered this question yet.

[The Postmaster General]

There probably hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 because homeland security is through the roof, not because we are having a shit fest in Iraq.

Of course there's not much money to be made by just confiscating box cutters at airports...

[Beenthere]

The war was over in a few weeks back in 2003.

The rest is about helping one really fucked up ethnicity to overcome post-dictatorship problems. Now it looks like they kinda deserved Uncle Saddam.

It's different for Kurds. It was different with post WWII Germany and Japan and occupational forces. /The real "oppressive occupation" including ideological and political was in the Soviet occupied zone, hell, it was even worse in China./

Lesson: the export of democracy to the wrong places in the dangerous times does not work. Maybe there is no cure. And I am not sure if I have to thank and blame Bush or just blame him for trying.

P.S. The theory of the American Imperialism screwing the world does not exist in my head. I believe in the real Evil only. I also do not believe in the theory that if we can stop "offend" them by the simple fact of our existence and the ways we live and operate things could be better and terrorism would stop. Terrorism is just one of the many tactics in their arsenal.

Enough with Iraq, back to hostages. Iranian Strategist scored again.

[notchreturns]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
There probably hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 because homeland security is through the roof, not because we are having a shit fest in Iraq.



Probably and also because they got their point across and have proven, to them and their followeres anyway, that America can easily be attacked, manipulated and infiltrated.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
The documents he took were copies, not originals. He's been investigated, he's testified, he did nothing worth prosecuting.

And as for the UK and their evidence, i have three words: Downing Street Memo.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

It is fact, coming from the British government, contradicting everything you've been saying. Why can't you accept the truth?

I heard differently. He took some documents that had not been archived yet and we will never know what they were. In the news today someone who was taking historical (non-political) documents and selling them on ebay. He has not been punished for what he had done which I find unbelievable considering the gravity of his offense.

That Downing street memo site is anything but official. Looks like a website like thousands of others that support liberal or conservative causes.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Beenthere
The war was over in a few weeks back in 2003.

The rest is about helping one really fucked up ethnicity to overcome post-dictatorship problems. Now it looks like they kinda deserved Uncle Saddam.

It's different for Kurds. It was different with post WWII Germany and Japan and occupational forces. /The real "oppressive occupation" including ideological and political was in the Soviet occupied zone, hell, it was even worse in China./

Lesson: the export of democracy to the wrong places in the dangerous times does not work. Maybe there is no cure. And I am not sure if I have to thank and blame Bush or just blame him for trying.

P.S. The theory of the American Imperialism screwing the world does not exist in my head. I believe in the real Evil only. I also do not believe in the theory that if we can stop "offend" them by the simple fact of our existence and the ways we live and operate things could be better and terrorism would stop. Terrorism is just one of the many tactics in their arsenal.

Enough with Iraq, back to hostages. Iranian Strategist scored again.

Maybe Democracy works best in countries founded on Christian and Jewish principles. In these faiths there is an understanding of humility, putting others first etc. Not that we have those principles down but just that we have that cultural predispostion. Just thinking about it. I don't know a lot about the Muslim religion but it does not seem like they really are about humility and I am trying to think of Muslim countries that are Democratic. Most have kings right? Or if they are democracies they may be in name only.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I heard differently. He took some documents that had not been archived yet and we will never know what they were. In the news today someone who was taking historical (non-political) documents and selling them on ebay. He has not been punished for what he had done which I find unbelievable considering the gravity of his offense.

That Downing street memo site is anything but official. Looks like a website like thousands of others that support liberal or conservative causes.

"Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not trying to hide any evidence. Prosecutors believe Mr. Berger genuinely wanted to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission but felt he was somehow above having to spend numerous hours in the Archives as the rules required, and that he didn't exactly know how to return the documents once he'd taken them out... We called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. 'There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals,' said Mr. Hillman. 'There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."

This was from an article in the Wall Street Journal that cited the lead prosecutor in the case. Berger was fined $50,000 and put on 2 years probation. The reason you heard differently was because you watch Fox News, a news station that is still lying about this story to its viewers (to this day!!!). Fox News does not, and has not ever concerned itself with the truth.

And the Downing Street memo comes from a meeting within the UK government with defense and intelligence officials. It is very real, and as official as any document within a government that gets leaked.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7

That Downing street memo site is anything but official. Looks like a website like thousands of others that support liberal or conservative causes.

That website may indeed be one that supports a cause, I wouldn't necessarily call it a liberal or conservative one, but it's clearly anti-Bush and has an agenda. The website wouldn't strike me as a reliable source either if I wasn't familiar with the document. But that website isn't what the Downing Street Memo is or why it is so important. The Downing Street Memo is apolitical in nature, it is simply a classified document that contains the minutes of a meeting of top U.K. government officials on July 23, 2002 discussing the lead up to the Iraq War (8 months before it started) following a trip to D.C. by Tony Blair and SIS head Richard Dearlove where they met with Bush and his cabinet. It really is the smoking gun absolute proof that the Bush Administration had planned to go to war with Iraq long before they claim to have decided to, and that they were looking for excuses to do so rather than reacting to some infraction or threat of Saddam's. It also points to the possible illegality of the war. This is the most important paragraph, but if you care much about the War in Iraq, I suggest you read all of it, it isn't long. The "C" is Richard Dearlove, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service.


"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. "

Keep in mind this was of a meeting on July 23, 2002. Here is another key quote from the transcript of the meeting contained in the memo:

"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change. "

That seems to make it very clear, from the top British intelligence people (the people you frequently refer to as having the info that led Bush and Congress to decide to go to war) that the war was politically motivated, rather than in the interest of the safety of the American people or the world and that Bush lied about it to the press and the public. Bush has never addressed the contents of the memo when asked about them, but Blair has confirmed it is an accurate transcript of the meeting.

That website does have a copy of the entire thing:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

A few reliable links to browse:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html

An examination of why the U.S. mainstream media has largely ignored the memo, despite its impossible-to-overestimate importance:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html

And finally, for the short of time or care, a Wikipedia summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_street_memo

[Lynn7]

Quentin,
That's a lot of reading you have there. I'll check back later. :)

One thing I will say is that as it has been said a million times, the US congress had access to the same information that Bush had before giving him the freedom to go to war and yet Bush is the only one faulted. And if it is true that the UK info was false then should'nt they be to blame? Why always Bush?

I actually think the whole nuke point of view was taken because they thought that would give them a better 'looking" reason to initiate the war but in actuality it was imperative that Hussein not be allowed to keep thumbing his nose at his agreements after 9-11.

But, if he didn't have nukes then, he would've had them soon enough. He was getting the money illicitly from the "food for oil" program thanks to Russia and France and he would've liked nothing better than to kill us though the terrorists. So nukes were a matter of time. And anyway, we waited so long before going into Iraq and there were many photos of large trucks crossing the border before the war that I am not so sure if he had the makings of nukes that they were not removed to another country before the war. Again, I wish I had the taped news programs leading up to that invasion. But I remember them well.

OK- I have read through them (more or less the same thing so it didn't take too long-thanks for posting though).

I think when they use the word fixed it is easy to take that in a few ways. Yes, you can take some evidence and use it to support your case to do something and that is probably what the Bush administration did. Hussein had agreed to things when he was allowed to stay in power under Bush the dad. Then under the Clinton years, Hussein kicked out the UN inspectors numerous times and were giving them the run around not allowing them to do their jobs- he made them look like idiots. He had people shoot at our planes as they did their circling over the no fly zones. Clinton decided not to take military action against them cause it might not have been worth it at that time. He couldn't really get into too much trouble cause we were watching (not inspectors but in general) and the food for oil thing was in place.

Then 9-11 and then we found out Russia and France had broken food for oil. Those things are huge. Yes, Hussein did not attack us on 9-11 but he was testing the limits of our power and we had to show force at that point or be castrated as a superpower who cannot act against the dictator of a small country. It is unfortunate but we are there again with Iran who is also testing the limits of the power of the west. They know we (the public) lack the will to go to war.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Here's what's pissing me off. I'm watching Hannity and Colmes last night and everybody's favorite guy Oliver North starts saying that the British soldiers should be ashamed of themselves for confessing. This fucking war criminal starts saying that these guys who are under extreme psychological pressure should be ashamed of themselves for doing the smart thing? Goddamn, I fucking hate that guy.

[Lynn7]

I don't know why he was criticizing them. What was the complaint?

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think when they use the word fixed it is easy to take that in a few ways. Yes, you can take some evidence and use it to support your case to do something and that is probably what the Bush administration did. Hussein had agreed to things when he was allowed to stay in power under Bush the dad. Then under the Clinton years, Hussein kicked out the UN inspectors numerous times and were giving them the run around not allowing them to do their jobs- he made them look like idiots. He had people shoot at our planes as they did their circling over the no fly zones. Clinton decided not to take military action against them cause it might not have been worth it at that time. He couldn't really get into too much trouble cause we were watching (not inspectors but in general) and the food for oil thing was in place.


Who is to say the USA is supposed to make sure things are being monitored? The UN is supposed too, and no other country was worried. They had just as much, if not more, at stake than us. See here is the problem, we, the United States, believe we are the only ones who are right. Who says we are? I love this country, but we don't always make the right decisions. We could get in a lot of trouble for even going to Iraq because our problem was with Afghanistan, they are the ones who attacked us. There has been no proof Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The problem with Bush is he is declaring war on everyone, you don't do that. It causes problems, and draws attention, negative attention.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't know why he was criticizing them. What was the complaint?

That they confessed they were in Iranian waters. North, being the piece of shit that he is, thinks it's ok to help sell weapons to a group of murderers but not to confess while being held hostage.