(suspected) Iran bombs kills 170

Originally posted by Nygdan
No, that didn't happen after 911.

And no, the president can't and won't go to war without congressional approval, for the same reason he needed congressional approval for Iraq. Especially now, when its been shown that, at best, his intelligence agencies and himself are incompetent when it comes to evaluating the evidence and making the decision.

You assume that Dems and Reps are different. How many people voted against the Iraq war? Like 3? Dems benefit just as much.... when it comes down to it, the people will be conditioned and Dems will play their part... if the Dems agree to war, then Neocons cannot be blamed right? .. People are more trusting of Dems now, they could more easily bind us into another war.

there link or "trail" to iran's high level military is kinda connect the dots and while there are indications that strong explosive weapons are being funneled from within iran they are on the border, and the link to the High level officials seems kinda like the 6 degrees of kevin bacon where this fraction trains this fraction and this fraction uses these weapons and this fraction communicates with the iranina gov't.

top congressman say that they will demand accuracy in reports after the iraq mess and that intelligence will be held accountable

also they say the SOLUTION is not an invasion but to head off the weapon smuggling in the area

so now what do we do to get the oil reserves in iran, we are so close to getting them, they are worth so much to this group. desperate times call for desperate measures

Originally posted by Rockpuck
You assume that Dems and Reps are different. How many people voted against the Iraq war? Like 3? Dems benefit just as much.... when it comes down to it, the people will be conditioned and Dems will play their part... if the Dems agree to war, then Neocons cannot be blamed right? .. People are more trusting of Dems now, they could more easily bind us into another war.

The problem with that theory is that there is no evidence to support it, only your distrust of democrats. Believe me, I tend to get annoyed by them too, but none of their actions so far have demonstrated any plan to go into Iran. As a matter of fact, many are pushing for the removal of troops in Iraq. Why would they just turn around and put those same troops in Iran?

I think the term "invasion" is a little over the top. Heck, they're struggling to put together the additional 21.5K troops for the surge

What is most likely is a massive strike using sub/ship launched cruise missiles and B2 sorties (haven't some already deployed to Bulgaria, or are to deploy there?) So, ground troops would not necessarily be involved in a push across the border but will sure have to defend against Iranian ground forces on one side and Iraqis at their backs. The deployment of aircraft to Bulgaria, Turkey and the carrier groups adds up to a serious amount of airpower concentrated in one region.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by Rockpuck
You assume that Dems and Reps are different. How many people voted against the Iraq war? Like 3? Dems benefit just as much.... when it comes down to it, the people will be conditioned and Dems will play their part... if the Dems agree to war, then Neocons cannot be blamed right? .. People are more trusting of Dems now, they could more easily bind us into another war.

The problem with that theory is that there is no evidence to support it, only your distrust of democrats. Believe me, I tend to get annoyed by them too, but none of their actions so far have demonstrated any plan to go into Iran. As a matter of fact, many are pushing for the removal of troops in Iraq. Why would they just turn around and put those same troops in Iran?

Indeed. I don't typically trust any politician, be it Dem or Rep or even some Independents.. But when we went into Iraq, I saw two groups working together, then after we where in Dems switched sides to play the emotions of the people.. I see the two sides as one in the same.

Britguy, I agree we most likely wont do a full scale invasion, but if we bomb Iran, Syria and Iran will come to Iraq (And Hezbollah) all kinds of new attacks, terrorist and conventional and even Israel could be endangered by such a bold move.

Don't believe anything that anyone says. Compare what the Bush regime says is an Iranian Mortar with an Iranian mortar.


photos1.blogger.com...

www.diomil.ir...



I say they are NOT the same. How could they make this mistake unless it was their intent to deceive?

Originally posted by citizen smith

Originally posted by infinite
According to Skynew report clip, the bomb came from the highest level of command in Iran..

ahhhh...dont you just love dancing to the beat of the war-drums...even if it's as manufactured as a pop-idol song

Did Kelly Clarkson sing on the war drum track?

What happened to Hagel? Who got to him? He changed his tune on voting against the 20,000 soldiers. I am anxious to see his 5 minute debate segment this week.

Someone got to him. Because from what I see, he's the republican Jim Webb.


Jim Webb, now there is a leader in the making,people.

Reagan Administration-
Author
Silver Cross

And to top it off he has a son in the marines in Iraq.
I could tell these neo conservatives would tread lightly if Webb stepped out.
As Joe Biden says, "That's a storybook,man"


Oh and Feingold,Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul to me proves he isn't D.L.C. owned.

THose types of democrats &republicans need to start a coalition.


Otherwise you might as well purchase your mad max dunebuggy mounted with machine guns and shoulder pad armor.

We have a chance but in order to happen we need to stop the war and get a double treason activated. Because if we don't this will give the next presidential administration carte blanche to do what they want.