Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bush set to re-attack Iraq
#1
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=611
Quote:President Bush reassured a nervous nation today that his Administration has no intention of starting a war with Iran. However, citing mounting evidence of Iraq’s ties to “the terrorist state of Iran,” Bush claimed that a re-invasion of Iraq was necessary.
“There may have been no ties between Saddam and terrorists,” Bush conceded, “but now the evidence is overwhelming that the Maliki government is in bed with Iran, a card-carrying member of the Axis of Evil.”
As proof, Bush claimed that our troops in Iraq had recovered not only enhanced IEDs with Iranian serial numbers, but also huge quantities of shells from Iranian pistachio nuts, littered on the floor of Shiite mosques. “And Vice President Cheney, who watches FOX news, informs me that high-ranking Iraqi officials have actually gone to … Tehran.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dispelled any notion that the United States is itself responsible for the current mess: “How were we to know that a predominantly Shiite country, would become allies with a predominantly Shiite country, especially after Shiites in both countries have been cooperating with each other for years.”
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Commitee, asserted that the Administration did not need Congressional authorization for the re-invasion, but that the President had the inherent Constitutional powers of “Do-Over-and-Chief,” citing the precedent of Mulligan v. Mulligan.
The Democratic majority in Congress, however, indicated that it would not simply lie down for Bush this time. Consequently, they’re planning to introduce a non-binding resolution which permanently opposes any withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, in order to prevent the re-invasion.
As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice … shame on us.”
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#2
quadrat Wrote:http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=611
Quote:President Bush reassured a nervous nation today that his Administration has no intention of starting a war with Iran. However, citing mounting evidence of Iraq’s ties to “the terrorist state of Iran,” Bush claimed that a re-invasion of Iraq was necessary.
“There may have been no ties between Saddam and terrorists,” Bush conceded, “but now the evidence is overwhelming that the Maliki government is in bed with Iran, a card-carrying member of the Axis of Evil.”
As proof, Bush claimed that our troops in Iraq had recovered not only enhanced IEDs with Iranian serial numbers, but also huge quantities of shells from Iranian pistachio nuts, littered on the floor of Shiite mosques. “And Vice President Cheney, who watches FOX news, informs me that high-ranking Iraqi officials have actually gone to … Tehran.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dispelled any notion that the United States is itself responsible for the current mess: “How were we to know that a predominantly Shiite country, would become allies with a predominantly Shiite country, especially after Shiites in both countries have been cooperating with each other for years.”
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Commitee, asserted that the Administration did not need Congressional authorization for the re-invasion, but that the President had the inherent Constitutional powers of “Do-Over-and-Chief,” citing the precedent of Mulligan v. Mulligan.
The Democratic majority in Congress, however, indicated that it would not simply lie down for Bush this time. Consequently, they’re planning to introduce a non-binding resolution which permanently opposes any withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, in order to prevent the re-invasion.
As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice … shame on us.”
---------------------------
Well. The thing is that anyone might have the possilibility to forecast that the Shiites in Iraq and Iran would embrace each other once Saddam and his Baathists were removed.

That the US Government did not see this development as a logical consequence is as unexpected as that story of WMD:s in Iraq after the 2003 invasion....

/track_snake
Reply
#3
I don't think they will embrace each other. They are Arabs and Persians. That is a big difference. In fact, al-Sadr is actually (relatively) anti-Iranian.
Reply
#4
There is some real irony here in that if Bush were to come out and absolutely guarantee that no U.S. attack was coming ... something like,

"We all realize it's in the world's best interest to prevent an Iranian bomb ... but the new Congress has simply tied my hands ... "

... it would probably hurt the Mullahs more than any bunker buster possibly could. Oil prices, with the uncertainty of a preemptive act already factored in, would tumble faster than a floor trader could raise his/her hand ... on second thought ... probably at about the same speed. Wink1
Reply
#5
It certainly would flummox all the lefties too. Would they feel automatically disposed to oppose this?
Reply
#6
jt Wrote:It certainly would flummox all the lefties too. Would they feel automatically disposed to oppose this?

It would definately take the wind out of Murtha's .... well ... you know what I mean ... 8)

... and it would be a giant conundrum for Hillary . It would put here in the position of being against 'peace' with Iran ... before she was for 'peace' with Iran ... before she was against 'peace' with Iran ... or, potentially vise vesa :lol:

To your point, it would likely make some of their heads explode as they feel instinctively obligated to oppose Bush on EVERYTHING ... Shock

Politically, it would be a tactically brilliant move ... as a matter of security and statecraft ... probably not so much. S4 On the other hand, I can't help thinking that the modern left should reap what it sows. They love to compare the Middle East to Vietnam ... but they forget that Vietnam wasn't going after the bomb and the missile technology to deliver it. Back in the day even guys like McGovern could have figured that one out.
Reply
#7
Anonymous24 Wrote:I don't think they will embrace each other. They are Arabs and Persians. That is a big difference. In fact, al-Sadr is actually (relatively) anti-Iranian.
--------------------------------------
Well... al-Sadr is not more anti-Iranian than he seems to enjoy his present stay in Iran. Or is he not there?

/track_snake
Reply
#8
I think Anon used the wrong word here.

Al Sadr is surely not anti-Iranian, rather he is said to be less pro-Iranian than some other leaders.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#9
We (the U.S.) are not about to attack Iran. And I doubt that the Israelis will try it either. Iran will get the bomb in a year or two or three ... and they already have 'intra-continental' systems for delivering it. The question is who will they use their new found powers on first (literally and figuratively)? My best guess is Europe ... best results ... least risk of 'serious' retaliation. At the very least they are the (very) low hanging fruit when it comes to nuclear extortion. Kind of an anti-matter North Korea ... rather than "give us oil at the price we decide (free)" ... more of a "take our oil at a price we decide (hopefully above market value)" ... It helps to remember that Muhammad was a merchant before he became a prophet.
Reply
#10
You'll defend us, won't you? There's this NATO treaty. :-k However, that won't be necessary. Somehow, Iran is no country that threatens or invades anybody else. You do. Who, except some American and Jewish fruitcakes, claims Iran wants to have nukes, anyway?
For us, Iran is an interesting market we can trade with and the very cradle of civilization. We wish them economic success and their religion is none of our business.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#11
quadrat Wrote:You'll defend us, won't you? There's this NATO treaty. :-k However, that won't be necessary. Somehow, Iran is no country that threatens or invades anybody else. You do. Who, except some American and Jewish fruitcakes, claims Iran wants to have nukes, anyway?
For us, Iran is an interesting market we can trade with and the very cradle of civilization. We wish them economic success and their religion is none of our business.
--------------------
I thought the cradle of civilization was in Iraq. Between the Euphrates and Tigris (Mesopotamia = between rivers)....

/track_snake
Reply
#12
Oops. Earlier the week all Thai papers were full with large ads congratulating Iran, 'the cradle of civilization'. Some aniversary of Khomeny. Anyway, good luck. That's what wikipedia says: "Iran has been inhabited by humans since pre-historic times and recent discoveries have begun to shed light upon what ancient culture was like in Iran, centuries before the earliest civilizations arose in nearby Mesopotamia."
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#13
al-Sard is anti-Iranian government...
Reply
#14
track_snake Wrote:--------------------
I thought the cradle of civilization was in Iraq. Between the Euphrates and Tigris (Mesopotamia = between rivers)....

/track_snake
No, first wine was produced in Iran 5400-5500 years ago, not so far from Iraq and Turkey, but in Iran... It was the begining of civilisation...
Reply
#15
quadrat Wrote:Oops. Earlier the week all Thai papers were full with large ads congratulating Iran, 'the cradle of civilization'. Some aniversary of Khomeny. Anyway, good luck. That's what wikipedia says: "Iran has been inhabited by humans since pre-historic times and recent discoveries have begun to shed light upon what ancient culture was like in Iran, centuries before the earliest civilizations arose in nearby Mesopotamia."
-----------------------------
Of course the Thai papers have to congratulate Iran... They are afraid of the muslims in the south in Thailand....

Yes. I agree that I might be wrong. But it is not fully acknowledged yet, and who knows what further excavations in Iraq will bring, if not everything has been destroyed by the war and plundered....

/track_snake
Reply
#16
quadrat Wrote:Who, except some American and Jewish fruitcakes, claims Iran wants to have nukes, anyway?

Get with the program quadrat. Even Europe is beginning to look past it's own denial. :roll: Any sort of attack on Iran is unfeasable ... both militarily and politically (sure the Israelis can try ... but any likelyhood of their success is questionable). The world is simply going to have to get used to a new post NPT order. It's like watching a car wreck in slow motion ... and, unfortunately, we are all relegated to being mere spectators ... and Europe is destined for a front row seat.

Per your earlier comment, I can see why resumption of trade with Iran is especially attractive to EU. Particularly when the Solana report indicates that ecomomic sanctions are having little or no effect whatsoever on their nuke weapons program. Might as well take commercial advantage while it's still possible. Kinda like the U.S. selling our scrap metal to Japan in the '20s and '30s ... only to have it shot back at us a decade or two later.

quadrat Wrote:You'll defend us, won't you?

Get real! You think a war weary U.S. electorate is going to go for that? Anyway ... there's always 'deterence' right? On second thought ... you could always brandish pointy sticks at your adversaries and hope for the best.

And why exactly would you even bring NATO up ... even as a jest? You can't possibly be suggesting that NATO would go to the trouble of starting a major shooting war over some trifling little inconvinience like a European city getting nuked ... that's not what you are saying is it? ... cuz it just sounds like crazy talk. Dude!! Settling that sort of thing really should be a job for the diplomats!! Wink1
Reply
#17
Anonymous24 Wrote:al-Sard is anti-Iranian government...
------------------------------
Don't be so sure of that....

/track_snake
Reply
#18
First, I read this excellent opinion by retired Lt. General Odom, from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...17_pf.html

as well as this article from the ensuing interview with Hugh Hewitt:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcrip...1dc70fcdab

Odom points out that of course Iran will get the bomb, just as Russia and England and Israel and the USA and North Korea and Pakistan and India got the bomb. It's inevitable, because nuclear bomb capability is the only thing the nations understand, the ultimate weapon. Will the Iranians use a nuclear bomb against an enemy? I dunno; and General Odom is great at saying about himself and his opponents, "We don't know." This, from an intelligence chief. S1
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#19
Fit2BThaied Wrote:First, I read this excellent opinion by retired Lt. General Odom, from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...17_pf.html

as well as this article from the ensuing interview with Hugh Hewitt:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcrip...1dc70fcdab

Odom points out that of course Iran will get the bomb, just as Russia and England and Israel and the USA and North Korea and Pakistan and India got the bomb. It's inevitable, because nuclear bomb capability is the only thing the nations understand, the ultimate weapon. Will the Iranians use a nuclear bomb against an enemy? I dunno; and General Odom is great at saying about himself and his opponents, "We don't know." This, from an intelligence chief. S1
----------------------------------
Well, Iran is not there yet. But I agree with you that Iran will get there. The question is what they will use the bomb for.

Israel got the bomb already almost 30 years ago. But they have not used it so far. Other than a potential threat for Arab states which want to invade Israel.

The question is if ever Iran would use the bomb against Israel. I don't think so. But the existence of the bomb will probably raise the noise levels of the ayatollahs in Teheran.

/track_snake
Reply
#20
track_snake Wrote:But the existence of the bomb will probably raise the noise levels of the ayatollahs in Teheran.

/track_snake
Rather reduce noise levels in other places...
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Iraq Was A Safer Place Without George Bush quadrat 67 13,738 05-20-2008, 04:36 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  Bush Speech on Iraq Palladin 22 4,919 08-02-2007, 04:06 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)