|
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
What a great post full of pointless rhetoric. Who cares what kind of plans they are. |
Apparently not yourself. However others that have seen similar patterns of this Adminstration's foreign policies and stances tend to have a bit more uneasiness when examining such actions.
| quote: | | It would be irresponsible for the Bush administration to not have a variety of plans for military intervention in Iran going all the way from limited airstrikes to a full scale invasion. |
Why? Explain. Considering by our own intelligence analysts that Iranian nuclear development is about 10 years away, why have such an incredible massive build-up towards Iran? What specifically garners such a threat posed by Iran right now that requires so much attention militarily?
| quote: | | Lets say they only make plans to strike a few targets in Iran, and they only have one carrier battle group in the area. To retaliate for the airstrikes Iran then invades Iraq and attacks the US military there, plus Iranian agents begin committing terrorist attacks in the USA and Western Europe. |
So I take it by these statements you are admitting the premise that we would initially strike Iran strategically? Didn't you just say earlier:
| quote: | | Who cares what kind of plans they are. |
Mmkay.
| quote: | | If the Bush administration did not have a plan drawn up to invade and remove the Iranian government already it would take weeks of planning to create one, and they would look like complete idiots for not doing their jobs properly. |
Uhh, weeks? According to the story I posted earlier (and provided that the claims are true), we are not talking weeks - we're talking 4 years of planning. That's a wee bit different, sir. But even if they're trying to "cover their bases", so to speak, and make sure they have a viable post-war plan in contrast to their debacle in Iraq, I believe they'd have a great deal more problems to deal with (hypothetically speaking) than merely having a viable rebuilding of infrastructure plan. It might have something to do with, oh I dunno, maybe the entire world including our own country being firmly against another fucking invasion?
Kinda strange thinkin' I guess, but since we're both discussing hypotheticals, I think it's fair to throw that one out there too.
| quote: | | At a minimum many senior administration officials would be removed from their positions for gross imcompetence. |
With the same light-speed response as removing Rummy, I'm sure 
| quote: | | Again, I fail to see how this is news or even important. Just because there are attack plans does not mean they will be carried out. It makes complete logical sense that these plans would be drawn up well before they would be needed, if they would ever be needed. |
Well let me get a bit more to the point - the plans by themselves may raise an eyebrow, but that's it. But one has to ask himself why these plans are being drawn up, and you already somewhat alluded to it with your hypothetical - strategic attacks. Now you couple these plans with the ever increasing political rhetoric and sabre rattling by Bush with Iran, and both of my eyebrows are being raised.
History is apparently repeating itself rather blatantly, and I tend to share the vast majority of sane-minded, reality-based opinion with the rest of the world and majority American public that I really want to keep this Administration's Executive powers in check. I would like to see VERIFIABLE evidence of Iran pointing nukes at our heads, Iran having WMDs, Iran having connections to al Qaeda and planning attacks on America, all the same bullshit rhetoric that was not fully substantiated prior to us invading Iraq. I see all the Neocon rhetoric in the same flavor as was there about invading Iraq towards Iran. Hell, the same ultra-influential American Enterprise Institute that has advocated and whispered sweet nothings into Bush's ear over the years, to which he's enacted on those whisperings, saying things like these:
Or a top Cheney aide say this:
| quote: | Some senior administration officials still relish the notion of a direct confrontation. One ambassador in Washington said he was taken aback when John Hannah, Vice President Cheney’s national security adviser, said during a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 “the year of Iran” and indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility. Hannah declined to be interviewed for this article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7021001275.html |
Hannah, BTW, was one of our wonderful sources on that lovely pre-war intelligence in Iraq:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3660169/
Grover Norquist (I'm hoping most know how influential he is):
| quote: | “Everything the advocates of war said would happen hasn’t happened,” says the president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, an influential conservative who backed the Iraq invasion. “And all the things the critics said would happen have happened. [The president’s neoconservative advisers] are effectively saying, ‘Invade Iran. Then everyone will see how smart we are.’ But after you’ve lost x number of times at the roulette wheel, do you double-down?”
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/...currentPage=all |
Or former CIA officer Philip Giraldi:
Or when the White House originally wanted the 2002 Iraq War Resolution to cover the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, not just Iraq alone, but was stripped by Senators including the Republican Senator Chuck Hagel:
| quote: | HAGEL: [F]inally, begrudgingly, [the White House] sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.
GQ: It wasn’t specific to Iraq?
HAGEL: Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. Is central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.
GQ: They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere in the Middle East?
HAGEL: Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up and put our language in it.
http://men.style.com/gq/features/fu..._5326&pageNum=3 |
In fact, it can be noted how the Bush Administration has DELIBERATELY undermined any diplomatic possibilities with Iran as far back as 2002. Let's keep in mind that Iran had originally offered a great deal of transparency with a deal back in 2003, to which Condi Rice seemingly had that darn selective memory thingy going again. In essence it offered the following:
| quote: | If accepted, it would have meant the Iranians would have put on the table ending its support for Palestinian terrorist groups; "action" on transforming Hezbollah into a "mere political organization within Lebanon"; "transparency" that Iran isn't trying to develop WMD; and "enhanced action against Al Qaida members in Iran." In return, the U.S. would ultimately lift all sanctions on Iran; ensure "full access" to nuclear technology (!); and provide, in general, a "halt in hostile U.S. behavior," to include action against "anti-Iranian" terrorist groups.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002528.php |
Of course as the author of that article states, that doesn't mean we should accept those terms at face value. Nevertheless it did open the door to a diplomatic possibility for us to see if there could be anything worthwhile established between us and the Iranians. That possibility was worth at the very least finding out, IMO, but what did the Administration do instead?
Axis of Evil.
Fuck off Iran.
Or how about Flynt Leverett, a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation write about Bush's utter asinine Iranian policy, which was cleared by the CIA but was blocked by Bush:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001829.php
Note the following:
| quote: | These matters include Iran's dialogue and cooperation with the United States concerning Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and Iran's offer to negotiate a comprehensive "grand bargain" with the United States in the spring of 2003.
There is no basis for claiming that these issues are classified and not already in the public domain. |
Terrific censorship of that which was already publicly documented.
So please spare me the tripe reply of "pointless rhetoric" when I document such things. The military actions COMBINED with the obvious rhetoric and political actions taken by this Administration toward Iran are worth more than enough concern. I kinda have this thing against invading another fucking country, considering this Adminstration's wonderful invasion record so far, so you must excuse my "pointless rhetoric" when I tend to see trends on what this Administration has done in the past when they combine their rhetoric with action.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Feb-21-2007 at 21:00
|
