Ww3- World War Three

[orbsycli]

dig it

Cheney's comments underscored a ratcheting up of U.S. rhetoric toward Tehran and came just days after President George W. Bush warned that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three.

"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences," Cheney told a forum organized by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

How can these @$$holes talk about PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST by threatening the WORLD of WORLD WAR THREE.

Is this really happening?

Money+Power is worse than Meth when it comes to EATING PEOPLES' BRAINS.

[Buffy]

If you'd like to read Cheney's full speech as posted on the White House site its posted here.

I'm not sure how you can get any closer to "declaring war" and of course its been pointed out that even President Bush is not using this same rhetoric, so this is tantamount to the VP thinking *he* has the power to declare war: and that goes *way* beyond Unitary Executive Theory!

Got war?
Buffy

[orbsycli]

Originally Posted by dick cheney

Given the nature of Iran's rulers, the declarations of the Iranian President, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region -- including direct involvement in the killing of Americans -- our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions. (Applause.)

The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

and there ya have it folks.
same story over and over.
these guys that supposedly run our country look for little things to exploit (with words like Regime)
make it seem like a problem, or a threat,
and then make this whole patriotic hanging out of it.

Cheneys speech was full of neural linguistic programming.

Is Iran really a threat to America?

Grow up?

[Buffy]

Just to make it clear, a lot/most of American's are sane on this, and even the MSM is calling the administration on this:

Originally Posted by Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, 10/29/07

The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler . . . a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence.

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on? . . .

We're on a path to irreversible confrontation with a country we know almost nothing about. The United States government has had no diplomats in Iran for almost 30 years. American officials have barely met with any senior Iranian politicians or officials. We have no contact with the country's vibrant civil society. Iran is a black hole to us -- just as Iraq had become in 2003.

(read more here, h/t Dan Froomkin, Wash Post)

Global Climate Change? I'm worried about Global Sanity Change,
Buffy

[orbsycli]

So why is America so interested in bullying Iran?
Is it really the nukes?
Is that what everyones so afraid of?

Is it the oil?

What's really going on?

[HydrogenBond]

The leader of Iran is using the politics of promises to maintain is popular base. Instead of a chicken in every pot, it is a combination of nukes and death to the infidels. This is what his support base wants to hear. He does not have to provide this, since it is like a campaign promise.

He is hoping the Democrats win the White House. This would give him a way to gracefully back out the promise. The Republicans are keeping his feet to the fire, sort of setting a deadline, where he has to pee or get off the pot. This alternative is no-win for him, so he prays to Allah that the Democrats will help him save face.

The concern is that he could be playing chess. Saving face, combined with a miltary scale down by the US, could allow him time to slip under the radar and then cause a regional problem when America is less prepared. A Democratic campaign promise involves redeploying the troops. The Republicans are are trying to stop the 2 act play, in Act 1. But maybe the Democrats are also making a campaign promise, they don't intend to keep, such that his double cross will become doubled crossed. This could unintentionally lead to peace. Sort of falling on a lottery ticket. Then everyone can pretend they were thinking this all the time.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by orbsycli

So why is America so interested in bullying Iran?
Is it really the nukes?
Is that what everyones so afraid of?

Is it the oil?

What's really going on?

Please bear in mind that the following is purely my opinion, for which I have not one scintilla of evidence, and doubt that anyone not in some way intimately connected with Congress, the Executive, or the 2 parties has, either.

I believe that this is about the 2008 US elections. The Republican party, I believe, fears that it will lose the White House, additional seats in congress, state governors’ offices and state legislative seats. Strategically, and, I suspect, based on polls and expert analysis, they conclude that threatening or actually engaging in war gives Republican candidates an advantage over their Democratic competitors, and can pressure Democrats in congress in supporting legislation and oversight favored by Republicans - the “for the troops” tactic that has proved so successful since the Democrats gained majorities in both houses.

I sorely hope that the threat of war is all that is involved in this tactic. As I’ve mentioned in some other threads, I’m worried that many military advisors and chiefs may underestimate the Iranian military, and that if directly attacked, Iran might retaliate to the extent of its capabilities – that is, that the US might find itself at war with a much smaller, less powerful country that nonetheless would not suffer the near immediate collapse of its military command structure and central government, a country that might even enjoy the support of allies such a Syria, or even gain the support of countries not currently supportive or Iran, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, while stirring up unrest and instability in countries currently supportive of the US, such as Turkey and Pakistan.

I’ve heard some suggest that it is a tactic to intimidate Iraq into negotiating with the US or US-friendly third parties, but don’t believe this to be the case, as the few people I know in the US state department believe that Iran is willing and eager to enjoy good diplomatic relations with the US now, but such communication is being refused by the US Executive.

I’ve heard some suggest that it is a tactic to increase support of US-proposed sanctions against Iran in the UN, but don’t believe this to be the case because the rhetoric appears to be decreasing support with countries such as Russia and China, who can veto acts UN acts and resolutions.

I’ve heard some suggest that it is a tactic to cause a major world war in order to cause the “Armageddon” some believe to be prophesized in the Bible. This strikes me as overly paranoid and credulous conspiracy theory. I sorely hope I’m right, and the conspiracy theory nuts wrong, about this reason.

[InfiniteNow]

A populace afraid is a populace controlled.

Too bad the powers that be are not painting those who pollute or contribute to global climate change as the evil Hitler. At least then we'd be engaged in a fight that was meaningful and more important to the survival of ourselves and our children and their children ad infinitum.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Too bad the powers that be are not painting those who pollute or contribute to global climate change as the evil Hitler.

If you consider Al Gore one of the “powers that be”, “painting those who pollute” as evil isn’t far from what I’d describe him as doing for the past half decade. Personally, I give Gore a big for his efforts, and think he should be given a prize .

Some of the other powers that be painting polluters as evil Hitlers would, I think, be rather like Hitler painting himself as an evil Hitler.

Just 8 posts into the thread, We appear to have upheld Godwin's law with a vengeance. Actually, I suppose Cheney upheld it even before the thread was started.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Just 8 posts into the thread, We appear to have upheld Godwin's law with a vengeance. Actually, I suppose Cheney upheld it even before the thread was started.

He actually has:

Originally Posted by John D. McKinnon, WSJ 10/21/2007

While the vice president’s 36-minute speech was characteristically somber in tone, he displayed a flash of humor in acknowledging that his imperious manner has earned him the nickname “Darth Vader” in some quarters. “I’ve been asked if that nickname bothers me, and the answer is, no,” he said. “After all, Darth Vader is one of the nicer things I’ve been called recently.”

I don't believe what I'm hearing... Obi-Wan was right... you've changed!
Buffy