It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bolton: Striking Iran 'Is Really The Most Prudent Thing To Do'»

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Bolton: Striking Iran 'Is Really The Most Prudent Thing To Do'»


thinkprogress.org

Fox anchor Jaime Colby asserted, “The Brits think we overestimate the threat of Iran in this particular case. Are they right or wrong?” Bolton — who has previously claimed that the “mullahs in Iran” want a Democratic president in 2008 — responded:

I think they’re dead wrong on this. I think this is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do. Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
The drums of war are still beating loudly! (at least in Bolton's head!)

I really don't think it would be very prudent to start another war at this time! For one thing, where is the money going to come from to sustain another war? Then again, some say it's THEIR plan to bankrupt the USA.

And aren't there other options?

How about just beefing up security along the border so they can't just cross at will! That would be a hell of a lot cheaper, and Iran wouldn't be able to cause an international outcry against US(A)! Just catch them crossing the border and show the rest of the world EXACTLY what is going on!



thinkprogress.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5/6/2008 by Keyhole]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I never really liked John Bolton and I certainly think he's overstepping by making this statement.

There was a reason he was removed from the envoy post and replaced by Khalilzad. I think him making rash comments like this was undoubtedly a factor in the reasoning.

He also said at one point:


There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States.


The man was, and is, patently a buffoon. His comment damage America's standing and reputation. He ought to just leave quietly rather than kickup a sandstorm while being dragged away.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Yay, lets go dismember some more women and infant children!

wait... that didn't sound right... terrorist infant children... there we go, now it's justified.


It's as if these war mongering politicians have never heard the term, "What you reap is what you sow."
The US, this one single country, is purposely going around the entire Middle East giving people reasons to want to bomb the crap out of the US.
I'm actually quite surprised there haven't been hundreds of attacks in the US by now.

If someone were in my country doing the crap the Americans are, I'd be looking to do some damage in return.


They say America isn't a democracy anymore, in that the people don't have any control over the government... if you do though, at least try to persuade your government to stop this madness. With all the people your government has ticked off, they're going to get YOU killed.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I never really liked John Bolton and I certainly think he's overstepping by making this statement.



He's probably not overstepping due to the fact that he's Bush & Co.'s puppet on a string.

Bush and Tricky Dick want this war before they leave office. I just hope it doesn't happen. And if Bush leaves office without attacking Iran, if Clinton or McCain are elected president, they're sure to do it for him! (Birds of a feather ...)

[edit on 5/6/2008 by Keyhole]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Bolton is a looney-tunes


When a guy is too much of a rightwing nut even for the Bush administration, you gotta know he is pretty far off the deep end...



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Keyhole
He's probably not overstepping due to the fact that he's Bush & Co.'s puppet on a string.

Bush and Tricky Dick want this war before they leave office. I just hope it doesn't happen. And if Bush leaves office without attacking Iran, if Clinton or McCain are elected president, they're sure to do it for him! (Birds of a feather ...)


If Obama takes the Democratic nomination and it looks like he'll win the General election, I expect there will be an October Surprise. My suspicion is we'll see a major "terror" attack blamed on Iran, Bush will start air strikes to prepare for an invasion, and either he will invoke those contingency plans to stay in office until the "crisis" is over (which of course it never will be) or he'll run off to his new ranch in South America to live off his Swiss bank account while leaving the mess for his successor--if it's McCain the new war will go on indefinitely, if it's Obama BushCo will do all in their power to muck it up and try to discredit him as an effective President and pave the way for 2012.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Blimey. Hasn't Mr. Bolton been sectioned yet?

I can just imagine him curled up in a ball in the corner of his padded cell, rocking back and forth in a straitjacket whilst repeatedly mumbling the words "the end... it's near!" to himself, over and over again. (Probably until a sympathetic warden is able to temporarily quell his feverish anxiety by handing him an old copy of Orwell's 1984 — undoubtedly his favourite piece of literature.)

Oh, the end is near, John; that is, in regard to what's left of your supposed sanity. Fruitcake.

Bye-bye now.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
If there is solid intelligence that Iran is training and arming forces to attack coalition and Iraqi forces in Iraq, what should be done about it?



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
As much as i hate to side with the liberal, anti-war factions on this one, I have to say:

There was supposedly solid evidence of WMDs. I believed it. I swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

I dont think I'll be making that mistake again.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

If there is solid intelligence that Iran is training and arming forces to attack coalition and Iraqi forces in Iraq, what should be done about it?



Here's an article just 4 days ago.

Iraq Presents Proof of Iranian Meddling-Official


An Iraqi delegation in Iran has confronted Iranian security officials with evidence that Tehran is providing support for Shi'ite militias battling Iraqi government forces, an Iraqi official said on Friday.

"They presented a list of names, training camps and cells linked to Iran," Haidar al-Ibadi, a member of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Dawa party, told Reuters.





The U.S. military said this week that "very, very significant" amounts of Iranian weaponry had been found in Basra and Baghdad during the offensive. Some of those arms were made in 2008, a senior U.S. military official said on Friday.



They say they have the proof. (Yeah, like they said they had WMD)

To believe them or not is the question!

I still believe, if Iran IS smuggling arms into Iraq, a better tactic than just attacking a training camp across a sovereign countries border would be to vigorously patrol the border to try to stop the influx of arms and militia.

We have UA (unmanned aircraft) that can patrol the border day and night!

Capture a few hundred Iranians crossing the border (if they are!) and a bunch of arms, and SHOW the proof to the WORLD and Iran!

[edit on 5/6/2008 by Keyhole]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
"Rule or ruin" seems to be, what gives.

Among people who respect each other, that would seem crazy, insane.

But people accept it like it was normal. I thought life itself is what is normal.

I don't get it, why leaders accept death and devastation like it was normal.

Let them live what they create for others; but how?





posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Keyhole
They say they have the proof. (Yeah, like they said they had WMD)


Precisely.


I still believe, if Iran IS smuggling arms into Iraq, a better tactic than just attacking a training camp across a sovereign countries border would be to vigorously patrol the border to try to stop the influx of arms and militia.

We have UA (unmanned aircraft) that can patrol the border day and night!

Capture a few hundred Iranians crossing the border (if they are!) and a bunch of arms, and SHOW the proof to the WORLD and Iran!


Yeah, that would be great, wouldn't it? To actually get incontrovertible proof before jumping off into another war?

I think you're on the right track with this, but remember, most Americans wouldn't know Iranians from Iraqis from Saudis. A false flag op where "Iranians" are captured, just as you say, would be pretty easy to fake, and American audiences would eat it up.

The questions people should be asking here:

Why is this info coming from Pentagon sources connected directly with right-wing institutions and the Bush Administration?

Why does the Pentagon have people on its payroll to spread this propaganda?

Why would Iran, who by all accounts is developing a nice, cozy relationship with the new Iraqi government, jeopardize that by arming insurgents to discredit and topple that government when they have a unique opportunity to create one of the strongest alliances in the Middle East?

Where are these supposed weapons and fighters really coming from?

Even if they are Iranians, does that automatically mean the Iranian government is behind it? If a group of gang-bangers went on a crime spree in Canada should the Canadian government be allowed to blame the US government for sanctioning such an action?

And why, oh why, does anyone in America still believe one single damn word that comes from our military/industrial/intelligence complex, especially when the source of this info is the very group that stands to benefit the most from another war?



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
How do these psychos get positions of power? If I was the one interviewing him, I'd have cracked up when he said that, "hahah, you're a crazy SOB".



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
If Iran wants to stay out of a war with the US then they should stay out of the war in Iraq.

If they continue to supply the enemy with men, training, and matériel, then there are few options to choose from. The question is really one of when does the US draw a line in the sand.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
However, can proxy war justify total warfare?

The US supplied arms to the Afghani mujahideen to use against Soviet troops. If the Soviets had taken this as an act of war, I doubt any of us would be alive right now.

If Iran wants to fight a proxy war by funding terrorists in Iraq, coalition troops should continue fighting and killing the terrorists.

I doubt a strike on Iran would accomplish much more than creating more terrorists within the region.

That said, I happen to know a hell of a lot of Iranians who despise their own government. I think a CIA-backed coup of some sort may well be a better option to topple the mad ayatollahs.



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Keyhole
 



Originally posted by Keyhole
I still believe, if Iran IS smuggling arms into Iraq, a better tactic than just attacking a training camp across a sovereign countries border would be to vigorously patrol the border to try to stop the influx of arms and militia.

We have UA (unmanned aircraft) that can patrol the border day and night!

Capture a few hundred Iranians crossing the border (if they are!) and a bunch of arms, and SHOW the proof to the WORLD and Iran!

[edit on 5/6/2008 by Keyhole]

Ok, so we monitor the border with drones and get solid photos that Iran is smuggling arms and training into Iraq.

Now what?



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 



Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by Keyhole
They say they have the proof. (Yeah, like they said they had WMD)


Precisely.

People are still hung up on a false, twisted version of "Bush lied".
Amazing, that left-wing propaganda should survive for so long. Of course, facts don't matter to some.



Originally posted by The Nighthawk

I think you're on the right track with this, but remember, most Americans wouldn't know Iranians from Iraqis from Saudis.

So why bother giving you evidence that you will reject in advance because of your hate for this administration?



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
The questions people should be asking here:

Why is this info coming from Pentagon sources connected directly with right-wing institutions and the Bush Administration?

Uhh, it came directly from the Iraqi gov't.



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Why does the Pentagon have people on its payroll to spread this propaganda?

Because it's their job?


Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Why would Iran, who by all accounts is developing a nice, cozy relationship with the new Iraqi government, jeopardize that by arming insurgents to discredit and topple that government when they have a unique opportunity to create one of the strongest alliances in the Middle East?

"By all accounts"? Which accounts? Those you make up in your mind?




Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Where are these supposed weapons and fighters really coming from?

Arms, from Russia and China, training from the Quds.


Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Even if they are Iranians, does that automatically mean the Iranian government is behind it? If a group of gang-bangers went on a crime spree in Canada should the Canadian government be allowed to blame the US government for sanctioning such an action?

Iranian gang bangers?



Originally posted by The Nighthawk

And why, oh why, does anyone in America still believe one single damn word that comes from our military/industrial/intelligence complex, especially when the source of this info is the very group that stands to benefit the most from another war?


Because not all of us are willing to kiss Ahmadinejead's arse and believe every word he says over our own gov't, that's why.



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 



Originally posted by 44soulslayer
However, can proxy war justify total warfare?

The US supplied arms to the Afghani mujahideen to use against Soviet troops. If the Soviets had taken this as an act of war, I doubt any of us would be alive right now.

Maybe you should be directing that warning to the Iranians?



Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I doubt a strike on Iran would accomplish much more than creating more terrorists within the region.

So let's be afraid and not rock the boat?

The Iranians are supplying arms and training to the Shi'ites to use against the Iraqi gov't. What would you do if you were CiC?



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky


Originally posted by The Nighthawk
The questions people should be asking here:

Why is this info coming from Pentagon sources connected directly with right-wing institutions and the Bush Administration?


Uhh, it came directly from the Iraqi gov't.


Uhh, no it didn't.


Baghdad doubts U.S. weapons claims on Iran
UPI
Published: May 6, 2008 at 6:50 PM

BAGHDAD, May 6 (UPI) -- The Iraqi government disputes U.S. allegations that Iran is stoking the sectarian violence there with money, weapons and paramilitary training.

U.S. officials said they have uncovered materials from rockets fired at the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad that bear markings of Iranian weapons manufacturers but have yet to produce any concrete physical evidence, Time magazine reported.

Those allegations and lack of evidence prompted Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh to tell reporters at a news conference Sunday Baghdad would handle the matter itself.

"We need our own government documentation of this interference, not from the Americans, not from the media," he said.

U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll said Baghdad needed to take appropriate action "based on their interpretation of the facts" regarding the U.S. allegations.

"If it turns out there is hard evidence," Dabbagh said, "the government will deal with it."


Like the man says... If the Iraqi government can verify there is hard evidence that the Iranian government is interfering in their country, they will deal with it.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join