US intelligence committees receive briefing on iran's terror activities

[240 is Back]

Andrea Mitchell on mathews said sunday morning that the white house is backing off the Iran nuke claim.

Now, they're chasing the "Iran is helping iraqi insurgents and we need to attack them to stop this".

Mitchell said this morning that intel committees received details on Iran's involvement and that a war in Iraq would greatly take pressure off Bush's Iraq war.   Bush is trying to sell the "iranians are killing americans and need to be destroyed" angle.




A 3rd war we can't win.  Insane.

[sandycoosworth]

i dont know if i agree with "war we cant win" ... they impose a new regime and they've won ... and the furthr back into the stoneage you bomd these places the longer it will take them to catch up and the more pie there is for you right now

[Purge_WTF]

Now, they're chasing the "Iran is helping iraqi insurgents and we need to attack them to stop this".

  And I believe them. I really do. I mean, after all, they said the same thing about Saddam and Iraq four years ago, and look how spot-on they were there.

  Not even Bush can be stupid enough to expand his war to Iran......can he?

[240 is Back]

  Not even Bush can be stupid enough to expand his war to Iran......can he?

The military firms - those companies who make BILLIONS on the war every month.  THEY want 3, 4, 5 consecutive "conflicts" because they are getting rich beyond belief with each one.   Not a win or a loss- just a stalemate.

THEY are the only people who, at this point, support *maintenance* forces in Iraq and invading iran and Syria.

Is Bush listening to THEM?  You tell me.

[youandme]

Not even Bush can be stupid enough to expand his war to Iran......can he?

He went into Iraq right? So much money is being made from this it's FUBR.

[Hugo Chavez]

i dont know if i agree with "war we cant win" ... they impose a new regime and they've won ... and the further back into the stoneage you bomd these places the longer it will take them to catch up and the more pie there is for you right now

That is not quite true.  If you put winning on achieving an objective then it's true but it's much more complicated than that.  We haven't won the Iraq war because Saddam is out.  Now I agree part of the objective is to put these countries into the stone age and they are doing that part...  It won't be so simple with Iran.  Simply bombing them back to the stone age is not going to be so easy without us getting hit severely.  Don't think for a second that China won't covertly work to bring ruin to America and Russia will be right there too.  You will see more attacks in America.  Big attacks if we attempt to bomb Iran back to the stone age.  Plus it just won't work, If they thought there was a problem in Iraq before, ahahahahaha... watch masses of Iranians who have lost everything flood across the border into Iraq then there will be a huge problem.  This is stupid as f**k from so many angles, I don't see how they think they'll get away with it and I only see an attack on Iran as a true escalation into WWIII... Just what some of them wanted all along.

[240 is Back]

3 wars going on at once.  lovely. 

what # is TOO high for the bush supporters here?

5 wars going on at once?  8?  10?

It's like you don't understand what happens in war, you love death and carnage, or you are just too scared to question the wisdom and decision making of the man you voted for.

[sandycoosworth]

That is not quite true.  If you put winning on achieving an objective then it's true but it's much more complicated than that.  We haven't won the Iraq war because Saddam is out.  Now I agree part of the objective is to put these countries into the stone age and they are doing that part...  It won't be so simple with Iran.  Simply bombing them back to the stone age is not going to be so easy without us getting hit severely.  Don't think for a second that China won't covertly work to bring ruin to America and Russia will be right there too.  You will see more attacks in America.  Big attacks if we attempt to bomb Iran back to the stone age.  Plus it just won't work, If they thought there was a problem in Iraq before, ahahahahaha... watch masses of Iranians who have lost everything flood across the border into Iraq then there will be a huge problem.  This is stupid as f**k from so many angles, I don't see how they think they'll get away with it and I only see an attack on Iran as a true escalation into WWIII... Just what some of them wanted all along.

what i ment was if you ware concerned about the concept of winning (ie from a pr perspective) you can declare victory as soon youve changed leaderships

what follows is not war, its guerilla warfare/garrison operation ... and the real concept of winning involves sustained chaos where you do not lose too many troops

the united states is well equipped to fight a few simultaneous wars, so long as they outsource most of the death to brown people

[Mr. Intenseone]

Andrea Mitchell on mathews said sunday morning that the white house is backing off the Iran nuke claim.

Now, they're chasing the "Iran is helping iraqi insurgents and we need to attack them to stop this".

Mitchell said this morning that intel committees received details on Iran's involvement and that a war in Iraq would greatly take pressure off Bush's Iraq war.   Bush is trying to sell the "iranians are killing americans and need to be destroyed" angle.




A 3rd war we can't win.  Insane.

Serious question......are you hoping we lose?

[240 is Back]

Serious question......are you hoping we lose?

seriously, i can't believe after all this time of me posting, that you would even ask that.

I love the USA.  I care so much about her future.  Which is why I am so concerned about us getting into multiple wars without even attempting diplomacy.

I want another 911 investigation because the evidence says that a very small # of people here helped the terrorists.

I want the US to try diplomacy before blindly bombing because it'll save American lives and money.

I speak my opinions because I want the best future possible for all of us.




Man, I can't believe you'd even ask that.  Of course I want us to win any wars we enter, and damn quickly.  But for you to question me on that, when I hope we don't even get into the war to begin with?

[Mr. Intenseone]

A 3rd war we can't win.  Insane.

Sorry Rob, but the above kinda thru me off. All I read on here are negetive things about OUR President and administration and people react like this is some kind of conventional war that we have fought before, I see people on here defending Saddam, Chavez and even Ahmadinejad..........PEO PLE ARE DEFENDING THE ENEMY instead of our own Government and that is just not right!!

[240 is Back]

Sorry Rob, but the above kinda thru me off. All I read on here are negetive things about OUR President and administration and people react like this is some kind of conventional war that we have fought before, I see people on here defending Saddam, Chavez and even Ahmadinejad..........PEO PLE ARE DEFENDING THE ENEMY instead of our own Government and that is just not right!!

I have never defended the enemy.  Aside from what I see as unnecessary wars for greed and highly questionable circumstances around 9/11, you don't hear me saying anything of the sort.

See, I would happily draw the glock and quietly execute ten terrorists with a smile.  I am by no means defending any of them.

The criticism on Bush's decisions come because the 21,500 number won't win, or lose the war.  It'll just maintain status quo.

War in Iran, if it happens, WILL be ten times harder than iraq.  Remember that Iraq was a starved nation from our sanctions and had a crippled military to start.  Iran is not - Iran has a strong military.  And they would have a defensive position - very hard to attack.

To me, it's crazy not to have talks with Iran, if they're asking for them, if it could prevent war.

And remember joe, we live in America, where the Constitution says it's okay to question decisions made on any level of govt, as long as we follow the law.  Right now you have 80% of Congress attacking Bush's foreign policy - is that treason? Of course not.  It's their right, and their JOB.

There is a huge difference between defending the US, and defending bush's policy.  I am sure that every American on this list would pick up a weapon to defend our country against a foreign aggressor.  Absolutely.  THAT is defending the US.  however, it's perfectly okay not to defend bush's decision to send 21,500 men to battle  Either pull out completely, or preferably, send in 300k men to just win it in 2 months and go home.

[Hugo Chavez]

Sorry Rob, but the above kinda thru me off. All I read on here are negetive things about OUR President and administration and people react like this is some kind of conventional war that we have fought before, I see people on here defending Saddam, Chavez and even Ahmadinejad..........PEO PLE ARE DEFENDING THE ENEMY instead of our own Government and that is just not right!!

Show me one post by one user supporting Achmadman    You have got to be one of the biggest liars on getbig... Please, please stop making shit up.  And Chavez is not the enemy... I'm not a patriot to back the rights of international corporations to arm twist nations into the globalist empire.  I believe in the constitution of the United States and am an American Partiot, that does not require I recognize the stated enemies of Exxon   If the people of a country want to be socialist and nationalize their resources, that's their fucking business and as a person who cares about national sovereignty, the sovereignty of other nations becomes important in the defense of ours.  This is all so far above your head... Please get off the rush train, it'll do you wonders.  I acutally have America in mind with my support of Chavez but explaining that to you is probably impossible...

[Hugo Chavez]

That's what I thought, Intenseone talking out his butt again, I have never once read anyone with supportive words for the Iranian president...

[GroinkTropin]

That is not quite true.  If you put winning on achieving an objective then it's true but it's much more complicated than that.  We haven't won the Iraq war because Saddam is out.  Now I agree part of the objective is to put these countries into the stone age and they are doing that part...  It won't be so simple with Iran.  Simply bombing them back to the stone age is not going to be so easy without us getting hit severely.  Don't think for a second that China won't covertly work to bring ruin to America and Russia will be right there too.  You will see more attacks in America.  Big attacks if we attempt to bomb Iran back to the stone age.  Plus it just won't work, If they thought there was a problem in Iraq before, ahahahahaha... watch masses of Iranians who have lost everything flood across the border into Iraq then there will be a huge problem.  This is stupid as f**k from so many angles, I don't see how they think they'll get away with it and I only see an attack on Iran as a true escalation into WWIII... Just what some of them wanted all along.

Indeed, bombing iran will not go over well at all.

[240 is Back]

if ya bomb them...

do you stop, or motivate, more terrorists?

do you go in and clean up, or let it become a terrorist breeding ground?

[Mr. Intenseone]

Show me one post by one user supporting Achmadman    You have got to be one of the biggest liars on getbig... Please, please stop making shit up.  And Chavez is not the enemy... I'm not a patriot to back the rights of international corporations to arm twist nations into the globalist empire.  I believe in the constitution of the United States and am an American Partiot, that does not require I recognize the stated enemies of Exxon   If the people of a country want to be socialist and nationalize their resources, that's their fucking business and as a person who cares about national sovereignty, the sovereignty of other nations becomes important in the defense of ours.  This is all so far above your head... Please get off the rush train, it'll do you wonders.  I acutally have America in mind with my support of Chavez but explaining that to you is probably impossible...

I'm not going to find posts, but I remember Jag and I arguing about, if I remember right, it had something to do with Iran funding Hezbolah, I try and find it. As for Chavez not being an enemy......you f'ing nuts if you think he isn't, explain to me when Chavez meets with most of the enemies of the US how he is not an enemy as well.....and while your explaining that, you can also explain how you have America in mine when you support Chavez?? You gonna pull that from some off the wall liberal site too?

[240 is Back]

Chavez is an odd topic.

Joe, can you name 3 reasons why he's an enemy?

(Having lunch with charles manson doesn't make him a killer - what has HE done that hurt the US?)

[Hugo Chavez]

Chavez is an odd topic.

Joe, can you name 3 reasons why he's an enemy?

(Having lunch with charles manson doesn't make him a killer - what has HE done that hurt the US?)

I like how he asks me to explain what my post already explains... Monster reading comprehension...  And I do not ever remember Jag supporting the Iranian president.  I remember the arguments of that time and there was anti-Israeli sentiment in posts... Leave it to Intenseone to twist that into support for Achmadminenjad.

[240 is Back]

Gates said today "Iran Is Target Of Military Build Up"

The Defense Secretary Robert Gates today announced that the massive increase in military power in the Persian Gulf is directly aimed at Iran. Gates' comments follow a weekend of intense and heavy loaded rhetoric on the part of many neocon figureheads, signaling that the faintest spark could ignite a huge escalation of conflict in the middle east.

Speaking in Brussels after meeting Nato officials, Mr Gates said: "We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future."

Gates said that Patriot anti-missile missiles, aircraft carriers, and cruise-missile-firing ships have been deployed in order to show Iran that the US means business and will not be distracted by the turmoil in Iraq. The build up has now been going on for weeks and shows no sign of being purely a warning.

The Patriot missiles are intended to shoot down Iranian missiles. The naval forces are there to pre-empt Iranian interference with oil shipments, which would be immediate retaliations to any strike.

A former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin, has today revealed that he believes a missile attack on the Iranians is imminent, while Republican Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul fears a staged Gulf of Tonkin style incident may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran.

Indeed, the Fars news agency reported yesterday that there have already been rumours of nonexistent clashes between Iranian and American battleships in the Persian Gulf waters. A senior Iranian official viewed the rumor as "a part of the enemies' psychological war on Iran".

[Hugo Chavez]

I'm not going to find posts, but I remember Jag and I arguing about, if I remember right, it had something to do with Iran funding Hezbolah, I try and find it. As for Chavez not being an enemy......you f'ing nuts if you think he isn't, explain to me when Chavez meets with most of the enemies of the US how he is not an enemy as well.....and while your explaining that, you can also explain how you have America in mine when you support Chavez?? You gonna pull that from some off the wall liberal site too?

we meet with enemies all the time.  We make all sorts of deals and trades with leaders not friendly to America.  China being at the height of this oddity.  No, Chavez if anything has been pushed into the hands of our enemies by corporate fascism, and forced globalization.  I believe in freedom and this corp mafia shit ain't it.  Had we treated South America differently when the people of a country desired socialism.  Had the big business interests gone a different route, relations with these countries would be completely different.  Evo Morales said it best, "we want partners and not bosses... We want relations with all the countries that will be based on mutual respect, relations of complementarity, balance, solidarity..."  But this thinking works directly against the International corporation's goals of rape pillage and plunder for maximum profit.  No, simple as shit, Chavez is an enemy of the corporation and one world government/nwo, NOT the people of America.  I want whats best for them and I want what's best for us.  I love America and if that means supporting a man prevents greedy evil men from harming American Sovereignty, I'm for it. I'm also always everytime for real leaders who are for the people.  Every time, I will verbally back men who truly believe in the people.