2002 Iraq talks & then 2007 Iran talk ...... - The Orange Mane

Spider · 02-02-2007, 10:39 AM

Kieth Olberman / through Crooks and liars
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/...Iraq-Iran.wmv/
After rummaging through the old tape bin last night, Keith compares the eerie similarities between Bush's 2002 Iraq rhetoric and his 2007 Iran rhetoric and puts together a pretty compelling case that should worry us all.

video_wmv Download (6504) | Play (5559) video_mov Download (2538) | Play (3436)

"It has been a haunting undertone to the new year. At moments, the start of 2007 has sounded like the end of 2002 or the start of 2003. It's been as if you could just substitute one letter; an 'n' for a 'q'. Like all that President Bush once said before he took us to war in Iraq was being recycled as what he's been now saying about Iran."

The fact that we're even talking about the (very real) possibility of attacking Iran is utterly dumbfounding. The part that scares me most is the confirmation we got just last week that the administration has set up an Iranian Directorate that will fulfill the same purpose as the OSP did for Iraq — namely, manipulate and exploit intelligence to fit preconceived policy goals.

Spider · 02-02-2007, 10:51 AM

I doubt most will watch this al the way through , but Thom Hartman was funny

Hotrod · 02-02-2007, 11:09 AM

Couple of things.

1. I do think that Bush is trying to find an angle to attack Iran.
2. I am 100% positive Iran today is MUCH more dangerous then Iraq 2002
3. Because of the Iraq debacle we cant move on N Korea/Iran whomever.
4. With all that said I'm not sure that the "military" option is the best option in dealing with Iran
5. None of this matters because of #3
6. Da Bears need to use a military option on Paytons mellon head
7. I think that #6 is an option every patriotic American should get on because your either with us or against us.

Spider · 02-02-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Couple of things.

1. I do think that Bush is trying to find an angle to attack Iran.
2. I am 100% positive Iran today is MUCH more dangerous then Iraq 2002
3. Because of the Iraq debacle we cant move on N Korea/Iran whomever.
4. With all that said I'm not sure that the "military" option is the best option in dealing with Iran
5. None of this matters because of #3
6. Da Bears need to use a military option on Paytons mellon head
7. I think that #6 is an option every patriotic American should get on because your either with us or against us.

alot of truth in that , but let me address the most important statement you made ?
are you Nuts , no way should the bears win ............ SB shuffle ring a bell you hippy ?

Hotrod · 02-02-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by §Pide®

alot of truth in that , but let me address the most important statement you made ?
are you Nuts , no way should the bears win ............ SB shuffle ring a bell you hippy ?

Ya its a tuff call but were Americans and Coach Mellon head is the evil dictator of Coltland. We need to liberate the colts and put mellon head on trial for "crimes against NFL Fans"

Spider · 02-02-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Ya its a tuff call but were Americans and Coach Mellon head is the evil dictator of Coltland. We need to liberate the colts and put mellon head on trial for "crimes against NFL Fans"

ahhhhhhhhh for you have seen some of the Manning Commercials with your own eyes

Dudeskey · 02-02-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I doubt most will watch this al the way through , but Thom Hartman was funny

that was a riot

Dudeskey · 02-02-2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Kieth Olberman / through Crooks and liars
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/...Iraq-Iran.wmv/
After rummaging through the old tape bin last night, Keith compares the eerie similarities between Bush's 2002 Iraq rhetoric and his 2007 Iran rhetoric and puts together a pretty compelling case that should worry us all.

Oooh yeah. They're running the same playbook they did back then... No more blaming "Al Qaida in Iraq" (how long has it been since they've been mentioned in the news anyway)... Iran's supposedly doing it all because "it was soooo well organized".

Whats scary is if Bush takes his cowboy mentality to Iran, this could incite an uprising by the Shia majority in Iraq in the likes we haven't seen... not to mention Iran is far better prepared than Iraq was.

If this tactic revolves around Israel, I think it should be their problem. Israel has the ability to turn Tehran into a sheet of glass if they decide to lob anything in their direction. The thing nobody really is talking about is the fact Ahmadinejad (however the **** you spell it) is falling out of favor w/ clerics & the people saying he's a loudmouth and a trouble maker. Attack them and the Iranians are likely change their tune and rally around him.

cutthemdown · 02-02-2007, 03:09 PM

at some point America or Isreal will bomb the underground enrichment facility and Nantanz mountain. They are installing 100 thousand centrifuges there and you think they don't need to be bombed? It would be crazy to think the Atomic Energy Agency or internationally political pressure would stop it. Not to mention Iran is helping to kill americans in Iraq and maybe much more then that. We will send them a message in about 6 mos I would say in the form of a huge missle and airstrike on those nuclear facilties.

Spider · 02-02-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

at some point America or Isreal will bomb the underground enrichment facility and Nantanz mountain. They are installing 100 thousand centrifuges there and you think they don't need to be bombed? It would be crazy to think the Atomic Energy Agency or internationally political pressure would stop it. Not to mention Iran is helping to kill americans in Iraq and maybe much more then that. We will send them a message in about 6 mos I would say in the form of a huge missle and airstrike on those nuclear facilties.

Thats the rumor ......... Bush and his admin lied to us before , heard the same shít about Saddam ..............

missingnumber7 · 02-02-2007, 03:53 PM

so in otherwords we need to give money to crazy israelis to go bomb iran.

cutthemdown · 02-02-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Thats the rumor ......... Bush and his admin lied to us before , heard the same shít about Saddam ..............

so you want us to tell iran beforehand thats what we are going to do? You keep all military plans a secret until you launch them IMO. Why give enemy a heads up?

cutthemdown · 02-02-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by missingnumber7

so in otherwords we need to give money to crazy israelis to go bomb iran.

Maybe that would be smarter I don't know. I do know Iran has pushed the Palestenians into a civil war by backing Hamas and giving them weapons. That probably makes Isreal want to bomb them. Isreal I can almost say for sure will never let Iran finish it's nanatanz enrichment facilty , or even keep the power plants they have built. In one day we can destroy all of that people. This is a target we can destroy. We wont be invading Iran with troops though I can say that for sure.

cutthemdown · 02-02-2007, 04:31 PM

If anything Bush thought Iraq would be easy and then on to the hard job of Iran. He was dead wrong obvioulsy and Iraq hasn't been easy. I guess that the general Rumsfield laughed at and fired was right after all. Just goes to show you that stupip presidents that never lead troops into battle should leave all military strategy to the generals. The president should say hey I want this done to this country. And then Military say how to do it. Almost every time America has had problems in a war it's because the politicians get involved in the planning. Korea, Vietnam come to mind right away. Iran at this point should only be dealt with militarly if the general in charge says it is vital to the mission in Iraq or if the President decides to end the nuclear amibitions they have. Anyone who thinks the average president should have a say in planning and strategy is crazy. Bush isn't smart enough and either is anyone running in the next election. I doubt even mccain has that sort of saavy. These generals study this stuff like Shanny studies a defense. No layman can compete.

Spider · 02-02-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

so you want us to tell iran beforehand thats what we are going to do? You keep all military plans a secret until you launch them IMO. Why give enemy a heads up?

as if any world leader believes the crap that comes out of Bushs piehole .....but more important Bush is selling the same lies to the american people again

cutthemdown · 02-02-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by §Pide®

as if any world leader believes the crap that comes out of Bushs piehole .....but more important Bush is selling the same lies to the american people again

WHO CARES WHAT IRAN BELIEVES WE WILL DO!!!!!!!

N.O.Bronco · 02-02-2007, 05:18 PM

I think the more intresting question is this. Where is the evidence that indicts Iran into being involved with the insurgencies? The Bush admin has said now three or four times they are gonna present the connections and the evidence to congress. Yet they keep stalling, and yet still keep speaking the same false rhetoric that happened prior to us going to Iraq. Now i personally think that their is proably a connection, but gut instincts are what got this admin in so much trouble in 02 and 03. So as an honest question can anyone provide concrete evidence that there is a connection? not heresay or like the people dressed up as our soldiers that we are ASSUMING MAY have ties to Iran, can anyone here provide the evidence?

Another very fascinating thing to ask yourself is this. Why do we support this Iraqi gov. and take its side when a majority of people Bush has alliances with are also allingned with Iran. Take Chalibi the Neocons prize ally the guy they wanted in power since the war started, guess where his other ties lie, yep Iran? I just think these are all intresting questions we should be asking ourself before we pick a side on whether to invade or not invade Iran. And also ask yourself if we are gonna do it, for what purpose, if those in power in iraq are gonna support Iran and keep ties to him when were done. Isnt it just in vain then?

edit: made some corrections, i put iraq instead of iran in a few places.

Spider · 02-02-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

WHO CARES WHAT IRAN BELIEVES WE WILL DO!!!!!!!

well that covers iran , but what about the American People ?
dont tell me you really believe the crap Bush is spewing ?

02-02-2007, 10:39 AM	#1
Spider Mr Diplomacy I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane Join Date: May 2001 Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder Posts: 84,438 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller	2002 Iraq talks & then 2007 Iran talk ...... Kieth Olberman / through Crooks and liars http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/...Iraq-Iran.wmv/ After rummaging through the old tape bin last night, Keith compares the eerie similarities between Bush's 2002 Iraq rhetoric and his 2007 Iran rhetoric and puts together a pretty compelling case that should worry us all. video_wmv Download (6504) \| Play (5559) video_mov Download (2538) \| Play (3436) "It has been a haunting undertone to the new year. At moments, the start of 2007 has sounded like the end of 2002 or the start of 2003. It's been as if you could just substitute one letter; an 'n' for a 'q'. Like all that President Bush once said before he took us to war in Iraq was being recycled as what he's been now saying about Iran." The fact that we're even talking about the (very real) possibility of attacking Iran is utterly dumbfounding. The part that scares me most is the confirmation we got just last week that the administration has set up an Iranian Directorate that will fulfill the same purpose as the OSP did for Iraq — namely, manipulate and exploit intelligence to fit preconceived policy goals.

02-02-2007, 05:18 PM	#17
N.O.Bronco Seasoned Veteran New to the Forum Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 323 Adopt-a-Bronco: None	I think the more intresting question is this. Where is the evidence that indicts Iran into being involved with the insurgencies? The Bush admin has said now three or four times they are gonna present the connections and the evidence to congress. Yet they keep stalling, and yet still keep speaking the same false rhetoric that happened prior to us going to Iraq. Now i personally think that their is proably a connection, but gut instincts are what got this admin in so much trouble in 02 and 03. So as an honest question can anyone provide concrete evidence that there is a connection? not heresay or like the people dressed up as our soldiers that we are ASSUMING MAY have ties to Iran, can anyone here provide the evidence? Another very fascinating thing to ask yourself is this. Why do we support this Iraqi gov. and take its side when a majority of people Bush has alliances with are also allingned with Iran. Take Chalibi the Neocons prize ally the guy they wanted in power since the war started, guess where his other ties lie, yep Iran? I just think these are all intresting questions we should be asking ourself before we pick a side on whether to invade or not invade Iran. And also ask yourself if we are gonna do it, for what purpose, if those in power in iraq are gonna support Iran and keep ties to him when were done. Isnt it just in vain then? edit: made some corrections, i put iraq instead of iran in a few places. Last edited by N.O.Bronco; 02-02-2007 at 05:36 PM..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-02-2007, 10:51 AM	#2
Spider Mr Diplomacy I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane Join Date: May 2001 Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder Posts: 84,438 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller	I doubt most will watch this al the way through , but Thom Hartman was funny

02-02-2007, 11:09 AM	#3
Hotrod Self Appointed Expert aka Dortoh Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 25,136 Adopt-a-Bronco: Miss I	Couple of things. 1. I do think that Bush is trying to find an angle to attack Iran. 2. I am 100% positive Iran today is MUCH more dangerous then Iraq 2002 3. Because of the Iraq debacle we cant move on N Korea/Iran whomever. 4. With all that said I'm not sure that the "military" option is the best option in dealing with Iran 5. None of this matters because of #3 6. Da Bears need to use a military option on Paytons mellon head 7. I think that #6 is an option every patriotic American should get on because your either with us or against us.

02-02-2007, 03:09 PM	#9
cutthemdown A verbis ad verbera Zimm to HOF Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Long Beach Posts: 32,416	at some point America or Isreal will bomb the underground enrichment facility and Nantanz mountain. They are installing 100 thousand centrifuges there and you think they don't need to be bombed? It would be crazy to think the Atomic Energy Agency or internationally political pressure would stop it. Not to mention Iran is helping to kill americans in Iraq and maybe much more then that. We will send them a message in about 6 mos I would say in the form of a huge missle and airstrike on those nuclear facilties.

02-02-2007, 03:53 PM	#11
missingnumber7 Vote Joe Mays to Pro Bowl Joe 4 Pro Bowl ST's Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Bismarck Posts: 4,760 Adopt-a-Bronco: Joe Mays	so in otherwords we need to give money to crazy israelis to go bomb iran.

02-02-2007, 04:31 PM	#14
cutthemdown A verbis ad verbera Zimm to HOF Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Long Beach Posts: 32,416	If anything Bush thought Iraq would be easy and then on to the hard job of Iran. He was dead wrong obvioulsy and Iraq hasn't been easy. I guess that the general Rumsfield laughed at and fired was right after all. Just goes to show you that stupip presidents that never lead troops into battle should leave all military strategy to the generals. The president should say hey I want this done to this country. And then Military say how to do it. Almost every time America has had problems in a war it's because the politicians get involved in the planning. Korea, Vietnam come to mind right away. Iran at this point should only be dealt with militarly if the general in charge says it is vital to the mission in Iraq or if the President decides to end the nuclear amibitions they have. Anyone who thinks the average president should have a say in planning and strategy is crazy. Bush isn't smart enough and either is anyone running in the next election. I doubt even mccain has that sort of saavy. These generals study this stuff like Shanny studies a defense. No layman can compete.