U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran

[mike p]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has launched a "significant escalation" of covert operations in Iran, sending U.S. commandos to spy on the country's nuclear facilities and undermine the Islamic republic's government, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

White House, CIA and State Department officials declined comment on Hersh's report, which appears in this week's issue of The New Yorker.
Hersh told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that Congress has authorized up to $400 million to fund the secret campaign, which involves U.S. special operations troops and Iranian dissidents.
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb and "do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program," Hersh said.
"They believe that their mission is to make sure that before they get out of office next year, either Iran is attacked or it stops its weapons program," Hersh said.


more:http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

[thoughtbombing]

Impeach.

A lot of people are going to regret that Obama vote in the coming months and years.

[JustJohn]

ok now what

[Bucho]

didn't iran just blow up one of it's own nuclear reactors?

or am i thinking of north korea?

[mike p]

didn't iran just blow up one of it's own nuclear reactors?

or am i thinking of north korea?
north korea

[Bucho]

well, either way...the bush administration doesn't listen to the advice or reports of the U.S. Intelligent Agencies (plural) and decide to do what they want (again).

with McCain being a lapdog for Bush, why would an Obama vote be a bad thing again? why would we want "Bush III" in office doing the same nonsense?

[traci_dub]

Impeach.

A lot of people are going to regret that Obama vote in the coming months and years.

yeah lets impeach someone with 6 months left in his term and waste more tax payers money

Ron Paul would be proud of your hypocracy

[thoughtbombing]

yeah lets impeach someone with 6 months left in his term and waste more tax payers money

Ron Paul would be proud of your hypocracy

If you break the law with one day left in your term, you should be impeached on your last fucking day. This isn't about politics, but the rule of fucking law.

Also, an Obama vote is a bad thing here because of his AIPAC/Israeli lobbyist ties--along with his rhetoric against Iran and "striking terrorists wherever they may be" which isn't exactly retard speak for "dun wury joooooze... we tacks ayeran"

[thoughtbombing]

Ron Paul also co-sponsored the articles of impeachment against Bush recently... try reading some real news sometime. Or did they let you down in the media and not even report it?

[The Professor]

If you break the law with one day left in your term, you should be impeached on your last fucking day. This isn't about politics, but the rule of fucking law.


egads... i agree with him again! (of course, only the first part of you statement... but yes, the law is the law...

[djephex]

impeachment is fitting. and obama wont attack anyone. that would go be totaly out of the goal. why would he bring troops home from iraq just to re-deploy them in another unpopular war? bush has been capitalizing on his personal business using the power of the us military from day one. dont we see the the pattern....bush is big in the oil game.....oil prices are at their highest ever....whos makin the cheddah? bush is. i doubt he cares if hes impeached, or hated or whatever. bottom line is g.w.bush has profited billions in the past 8 years, and hes ready to take our money and buy a new ranch in bora bora to retire.

[mikemcgrath]

fuck it, let's start this next world war already! there is too many people building up as it is! there is not enough food to go around and the gas and electricity everyone is using is killing this world!

let's get it on muthafuckers!!!

:)

[J. Phoenix]

You know, this is some scary shit. Israel very recently performed practice runs with their military testing feasibility of bombing Iran.

We can safely assume that a military action in Iran will involve US troops because we are sworn to defend Israel, and we are sitting on both sides of Iran--Iraq to the West, Afganistan to the East.

This has political implications as well. It is far more likely that in an active state of war our countrymen will be more likely to vote for John McCain as he has past military experience.

The military exercise by Israel I mentioned earlier came on the heels of announcements that Olmert (the PM) is under investigation for bribery & corruption.

I agree now as I have in the past that Bush should be impeached. He and his Administration should also be held accountable before international courts for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Quite simply, George W. Bush is responsible for fabricating a rationale for war which was unnecessary and has endangered the security of the world--let alone the deaths of Afgani's, Iraqi's, alone American troops and the troops of other nations. He must be held accountable.

This is a better cause for impeachment proceedings than perjury following an investigation into one's personal life and sexual activities is it not?

But we will all admit that WWIII would be an acceptable distraction, and after close a decade of distractions and debacles, what else should I expect?

[thoughtbombing]

This is a better cause for impeachment proceedings than perjury following an investigation into one's personal life and sexual activities is it not?

Clinton broke the law, too... he should have been impeached. Equal justice requires that we follow them as written. I agree with everything you said, but to qualify this one point, Clinton still broke the law.

[JustJohn]

Clinton broke the law, too... he should have been impeached. Equal justice requires that we follow them as written. I agree with everything you said, but to qualify this one point, Clinton still broke the law.


Indeed he did, but the fact that Clinton was impeached for perjury and Bush and Cheney have NOT been impeached for the plethora of crimes they are committing is retarded.

It is interesting that the repub congress at the time was able to impeach Clinton but the democrat controlled congress of now has been unable or unwilling to impeach the current administration.

this whole situation is extremely frustrating

yet all we do is bitch about it on message boards. HA!

*goes and hits bong*

[djephex]

i invision lots of people dieing soon. harsh times are right around the corner my homies!

[EDENFLUX]

aren't these people angry because we are in the middle east?

[JustJohn]

i invision lots of people dieing soon. harsh times are right around the corner my homies!

lots of people have already been dying

[spider_bigger]

i enjoy that a few people are aware of current global/political news stories (as much as we are told of them, anyway). let's not forget energy, currency, and food.

are any of you aware of geological or planetary happenings? volcanic, seismic, tectonic... sun spot(ic)...?

enjoy your next 3-4 years... IF we get that much.

[thoughtbombing]

i enjoy that a few people are aware of current global/political news stories (as much as we are told of them, anyway). let's not forget energy, currency, and food.

are any of you aware of geological or planetary happenings? volcanic, seismic, tectonic... sun spot(ic)...?

enjoy your next 3-4 years... IF we get that much.

Yes. A few people are aware and a few are wearing rose colored glasses. Oh well... in either case, Obama will not be pulling anyone out of Iraq or Afghanistan. If anything, he's signaled that his policies are changing and he's moving toward the proverbial "middle" and changing his policy on Iraq. Why would he pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan, when we already have Iran flanked to the East and West? Why still, would he signal that he intends to use the stick on Iran.

So I offer a series of questions for Obama supporters and foes, alike...

1. What policy has Obama AUTHORED(not cosigned... OG!) that has demonstrated a real ability to bring about said changes?

2. What part of Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty do we not understand? Iran is within the guidelines, they have a right to have CLEAN NUCLEAR POWER... guess what, it's better than Coal or Oil.

3. Oil being their biggest export and how they make all their money... why would they "get high on their own supply"?

4. What do we care if Iran gets nukes... they can't deliver them and if they could, it wouldn't be here.. in my book it shouldn't matter to me what happens outside of my country unless it affects me.

[J. Phoenix]

I suppose my only question for you is, Who is your better alternative to Obama?

I don't think he's the Messiah or has all the answers, but he's the best chance we've got at change next to the alternative.

I am concerned that elements in our government are attempting to bolster his support by setting the stage for another invasion...and I guess that'd be my general question to everyone: What should we do about that?

[thoughtbombing]

My solution is the Constitution. We elect the person who will best fulfill the OATH OF OFFICE that they take. If you can look at the Constitution and honestly tell me that it doesn't assure us the right to bear arms to protect ourselves, or the right to not be taxed by King George--then vote for Obama. Set your personal beliefs aside for a moment, if you can, and think about the reasoning behind the wording of the Constitution.

"Ourselves and our Posterity" - Preamble to the Constitution

That means that their childrens childrens children would be protected by and required to protect, the Republic. If you can look at the 10th Amendment objectively and tell me that Obama's policy on State rights vs Federal rights is legitimate or, most importantly LEGAL, then vote for Obama.

If you believe that the Nation that went from Tarring and Feathering King George's tax collectors, to being scared of assassination by those tax collectors is more free... by all means, vote for Obama... if you understand that your own personal ethics should play less of a role in the NATIONAL sense than the local sense, then you vote Constitution, Libertarian, etc.

You have every right to influence your local elections in a manner that would enact socialist policies, and if that is your personal ethical choice, then by all means. Where I'm coming from is, I live in a different state... Missouri shouldn't decide the laws for any other state. You have a certain amount of proportional representation, and that is all you should get. That's all my state should get.

Where do we get off, saying that the opinions of people in California and New York are any more or less valid than Kansas?

Hillary took a pledge to not run in Michigan or Ohio... Obama nailed her for breaking that pledge. Obama should take public financing--even though I don't personally believe in publicly financed campaigns and wouldn't vote for someone who ran one. You make a pledge, it's your word. If it's a pledge to clean the dishes and you don't, it's the same thing in my mind as pledging to support the constitution... you won't do it.

The answer to your question is the same answer I have for Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al. and I'll let my communist friend Sean Penn tell you all about it:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lgGETrMMY9w

Take his answer and apply it to the US Constitution, then apply that to the 535 Members of Congress... if they have ever voted for anything, even a fucking Post Office to be named Such and Such Post Office, or George Brett Overpass, etc... ANY FUCKING THING that wasn't Authorized by the US Constitution--they should be in jail or swinging from a damn gallows for Treason. Any questions?

[Bucho]

why has the term communism been taken to such an abhorrent level? it's ultimately a good theory, greed just fucks it up.

[thoughtbombing]

why has the term communism been taken to such an abhorrent level? it's ultimately a good theory, greed just fucks it up.

Communism isn't a good theory. The theory that you would give up your liberty and the right to fend for yourself, or BE SUCCESSFUL... the very notion of Communism is anti-freedom in terms of becoming a vassal to the state. So if you value plebe-like living, then yea, it's great.

[Bucho]

that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at a "everyone gets taken care of" system. at no point do marx or engels say "well, this works...but you have to be a slave to the mentality." that's nonsense.

[thoughtbombing]

In communism, they take the simplistic and rose colored view that man is worth saving. If someone is fucking lazy, they shouldn't eat. What is the matter with letting nature take it's course... with letting people fend for themselves. It's not like I'm any more blessed with anything than anyone else... you could call me one of the have-nots. So it's not like I am fucking rich and trying to stay that way. I just know that under socialism, I'll never GET rich. That is a problem for me... why work if not to increase your share?

[Bucho]

except with the theory of communism, no one gets to be lazy, EVERYONE works for an equal amount of food/sustenance, etc.

man is worth saving. why wouldn't s/he be?

[thoughtbombing]

except with the theory of communism, no one gets to be lazy, EVERYONE works for an equal amount of food/sustenance, etc.

man is worth saving. why wouldn't s/he be?

theory and reality aren't the same thing. Human nature is real... rose colored realities based on bullshit political systems that encourage laziness aren't real.

[Bucho]

that's why i stated marx and engel's ideas, which aren't bullshit at all.

however, communism in both a theoretical sense (marx) and the physical sense (china) are two vastly different animals, neither of which encourages laziness. that's not rose-colored anything, that's fact.

capitalism, however, makes people lazy.

[thoughtbombing]

capitalism, however, makes people lazy.

no it doesn't. it encourages people to work hard, because there will be PERSONAL REWARD. You can't deny human or animal nature is to do what is best for himself. If I see that hard work will make me rich, I'll work harder... if I see that I work harder and don't get rich, I can change my profession and will have the economy to do it.

In communism I don't have much ability to do that. I'm not just talking in China, I'm talking even in the Marxist realm. Communism doesn't work because the rewards aren't enough for everyone to work for them, and because human nature will cause others to game the system. In either case, it's a nightmare for those who value individual, rather than group ideologies.

[J. Phoenix]

Of course, its the people who are lazy and don't deserve any assistance. We really need to give our money to business owners and financial institutions that already have large sums of money in reserve. While we're at it, they really need tax breaks, seizure of property that needs to be developed, and deregulation to support all us lazy people they grace us by employing.

Isn't it amusing that conservatives support a party which gives billions of dollars in taxpayer money/property to start, to run, or prop up Corporations--and then balk at the concept of a government that exists to help all its Citizens equitably with all available resources shared for the better good.