Ooh deja vu :)

Hobbes

Bush declares that Iran are supplying components for roadside bombs in Iraq.

Oddly enough the same day the US military state that there is no proof that Iran is doing this.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-03-14T194139Z_01_N14358184_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-IRAN.xml

Not quite WMD. Maybe IED is the new buzzword for '06 ? Really where is Bush getting his intel?

flogen

From his ass by the looks of things. It's an interesting new angle that they're taking, one that is so close to the last I wonder how many people will be fooled.

This claim of direct involvement with terrorism coupled with their plan to create WMD's (which, of course, everyone would like to resolve peacefully), is a sure sign that a new war is on the way within the next 2 years.
So when they get their war hats on, they can say "well we tried every other option, but it didn't work, even sanctions failed!!! We tried to be peaceful but they just wouldn't let us!!", and of course, should the Nuclear problem resolve itself before then they can say "well, we thought they knew better but they're giving the turrurists bombs that kill Johnny America and his pals. I don't think we have a choice, do you? If we don't act now, your family will be next."

I don't think there's any question as to who the next target of the War on Terror will be, I think the bets are being taken on who comes after Iran.

Akrasia

I think Bush gets his ideas by thinking to himself 'If I was Iran, what would I do' and it seems completely natural to him that Iran would be supplying weapons to the enemy of their enemy, after all, america have been doing that for hundreds of years.

Bush doesn't need evidence to support the things he says because none of the moron white house press corps ever ask him any hard questions.

Actually the moron press as you call them are pretty fiesty lately but Bushes handlers rarely let them near him.
It's his misfortunate spokespersons that get the grillings.

I can see the similarity but putting my Devils advocate hat on here for a moment.

That Reuters link just tells us that yer man cant link the sourcing of the weapons,just that they are Iranian.It's not telling us anything else.
Unless Bush gave us fact or his military gave us undeniable fact,its always just opinion.

Where exactly are they coming from? Why is there no clamp down on the Iranian side on their sourcing(they've always seemed well able to clamp down on many other less serious things in that country easily) ?

It's not a great leap to go from the position that the weapons are Iranian to the Iranian government aiding their trip to Iraq.
By default by not clamping down and stopping it, they are.
It seems pretty obvious that they dont care or rather they probably like the fact that the weapons are there.

So in the interest of getting a discussion going... Discuss

BigWilly

flogen wrote:

So when they get their war hats on, they can say "well we tried every other option, but it didn't work, even sanctions failed!!! We tried to be peaceful but they just wouldn't let us!!"

What if it does come down to that? When there's no more reasoning with Iran and they come closer and closer to developing a nuclear bomb. What do you think we should do?

flogen

BigWilly wrote:

What if it does come down to that? When there's no more reasoning with Iran and they come closer and closer to developing a nuclear bomb. What do you think we should do?

That's off topic and covered many times before around here; in short I believe that diplomatic pressure can work if done properly, I also fail to see any evidence to say Iran are going to develop weapons other than the fact that they want nuclear power (but they're the bad guys so they must want to do bad things, right?).

bonkey

flogen wrote:

I wonder how many people will be fooled.

About the same as the last time, at a guess. Those who will go so far as to listen to the President talking, but no so far as to read the critiques afterwards.

Check out this piece on HuffingtonPost by Representative John Murtha. It pretty clearly establishes a strong trend of the use of these types of trends.

Whats most notable is that you'll only find this type of thing being taken seriously on Democratic / Left-Wing blogs and other online resources (fora and so forth). Look for it in the mainstream media, and you'll be searching.

There'll be a piece now and again pointing out that comments made by A appear to be at odds with comments made by B.....but when's the last time you saw someone stand up in a press conference, and start with "Mr. President, your comment regarding X which you made last week flatly contradicts what your experts / colleagues are claiming. How can that be?"

is a sure sign that a new war is on the way within the next 2 years.

I wouldn't be so sure on that. Its just as likely that Iran is being made a big issue so that national security can once again become the fear-stick to beat the electorate with come the elections.

Earthman wrote:

Actually the moron press as you call them are pretty fiesty lately but Bushes handlers rarely let them near him.

The President regularly makes speeches in front of the Press Corps in the Whitehouse. Either the Press are not being allowed to send in who they want and not making an issue of it, or they are being allowed to send in who they want, and are not making an issue of what is being said.

Bush is apparently about to do a series of 5 (?) speeches to boost his "stunning" popularity rating. These speeches will most probably concentrate on issues about National Security....like Iran supplying components for IEDs.

Want to take bets as to how much of it the press will allow pass without comment? My guess is that mainstream media will concentrate more on it being about boosting popularity than about it being based on fiction. They are not going to turn around and produce headlines such as :

"Unbelievably unpopular President resorting to baseless claims in order to scare populace back on his and/or his party's side"

OK - its too long and not catchy enough for a headline....but I will be utterly astounded if any of the major US or International media take such a stance.

Of course....such a stance would literally beg for a replay of the good ol' "with us or agin' us" line of pseudo-logic which was trotted out when Iraq was in the cross-hairs. After all...if opposing the US invasion was effectively the same as supporting Saddam, suggesting the President has ulterior motives for making up this **** is "obviously" nothing short of a full-blown declaration of support for the Iranian regime and the international terrorism that it sponsors.

jc

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

It's not a great leap to go from the position that the weapons are Iranian to the Iranian government aiding their trip to Iraq.
By default by not clamping down and stopping it, they are.
It seems pretty obvious that they dont care or rather they probably like the fact that the weapons are there.

So in the interest of getting a discussion going... Discuss

Of course it could have came from Iran in any given time over the last few decades? Or maybe it's electronics from Iran that were never intended for that use. Or maybe Bush is just pulling it out as someone already suggested.

The obvious reason for slating Iran is to attack it. Therefore no matter what Iran does or doesn't do...the motivation is there to attack and they will find any reason to do it.
I would think that a blatantly obvious observation.

Akrasia

remember that anthrax that was used against americans in 2002? That was American weaponised anthrax that came from an american state facility. does that mean the american Government was co-operating with the terrorists who were poisoning people with that anthrax?

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

Unless Bush gave us fact or his military gave us undeniable fact,its always just opinion.

I wonder if Presidents are (or should be) subject to behaviour rules similar to this board, where one is required to distinguish between what is, and is not, personal opinion

By default by not clamping down and stopping it, they are.

Are the US not equally at fault using this logic, on the grounds that they are clearly not securing Iraqs borders with the finest army in the world, whilst blaming nations with far lesser resources for not doing the same on their side of the border?

Borders do have two sides, after all. It seems facetious to blame only one side for it not being secure. If the US could catch the stuff coming into Iraq, then they could show there is a case to be made that the border security in the neighbouring nations is insufficient.

If the US cannot or will not do this, then they are asking others to do what they themselves cannot or will not do...and blaming them for it.

Where exactly are they coming from?

I think thats exactly the point. If one can't answer that question, then one shouldn't be assigning blame on the basis of an assumed answer.

Would GWB - or any US Administration for that matter - accept responsibility for any and all illegal acts carried outside US borders using US-originating equipment, be it computers, weapons, or anything else? I somehow doubt it. So the suggestion that the Iranian government are to blame because some of the stuff is Iranian in origin would seem hypocritical in the absence of any less tenuous a link.

jc

SteveS

I doubt that this is a prelude to some type of significant military action. There is so little support for the Iraq war that he (or the next president) would have to find something more than IED's and the nuclear boogeyman.

I suppose he could just ignore public opinion, like he did with "portgate", but I doubt congress would go along with a war with Iran. As for the press, I don't think they have given him much of a pass since just after 9-11. Even conservatives pundits like O'Reilly and Hannity have been blasting Bush on a daily basis.

I wouldn't be so sure on that. Its just as likely that Iran is being made a big issue so that national security can once again become the fear-stick to beat the electorate with come the elections.

Do you think Iran shouldn't be an issue?

Akrasia

just out of curiosity, what issues have Bill o Reilly and co been attacking Bush on?

SteveS

just out of curiosity, what issues have Bill o Reilly and co been attacking Bush on?

I only catch their TV shows a few nights a week. Same goes for their radio shows. Off the top of my head, they have been critical of Bush on:
-Illegal Immigration
-Dubai ports deal
-Fiscal policy

I am sure that there may be others, but I just pointed this out to show that some conservatives aren't all that happy for Bush. Personally, I voted for him twice, but mostly because he was the lesser of two evils. One of the negative things about a two-party system is that there really isn't much of a choice.

Akrasia

O Reilly and other uber conservatives are giving out because Bush is too soft on Immigration?
That's not much of a consolation to the rest of the world, from all anecdotal evidence, the U.S. immigration system has gone extremely strict.

So Gore and Kerry were both more evil than George Bush? Or was it just that any democrat will always be the lesser of two evils compared with any republican?

I think the worst that can be said about Kerry was that he was uninspiring, he didn't have the same malevolant air about him that george bush has exuded from even before he was elected the first time.

bonkey

SteveS wrote:

Personally, I voted for him twice, but mostly because he was the lesser of two evils.

Its funny....this is the only reason I've ever heard first-hand for someone voting for Bush. Not one single person that I've ever heard explain their reasoning has offered anything other than "I was voting against Kerry".

As for the issues that were listed for criticism of Bush...well...the absence of any of the major issues of the day kinda shows just how honest such criticism is.

Illegal immigration? There are large chunks of the American economy that would quite literally fall apart if it wasn't for the illegal immigration. Its neither a problem that any government (Democrat or republican) is likely to tackle in the near future), nor a problem with solutions that anyone who criticises it will accept as an improvement. Its a bit like people complaniing about the foreigners coming over to Ireland and 'taking our jobs', despite the country enjoying full employment and our economy relying on this influx to a significant extent.

The Dubai Ports Issue? What issue? This was a manufactured story, and to be quite honest it only served to distract people from the literally-criminally-negligent security issues which exist at US ports and which this deal was in no way going to effect.

Fiscal Policy? The biggest problem with US fiscal policy is the massive amounts of money being pumped into supporting the war in Iraq. How can you criticize one and not the other? By being someone like Bill O'Reilly I guess, where there is no contradiction in supporting an action and criticizing the funding of it.

jc

ambro25

Isn't Iran amongst the largest petrol/gas producers in the area, after Iraq?

Didn't they also start selling their barrels in € instead of $?


... if yes to both, pretty much QED

Gurgle

SteveS wrote:

I doubt that this is a prelude to some type of significant military action. There is so little support for the Iraq war that he (or the next president) would have to find something more than IED's and the nuclear boogeyman.

And another (bigger) army.

sovtek

SteveS wrote:

Do you think Iran shouldn't be an issue?

"First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye. "

sovtek

I'd actually like to put it out there that Iran has every right to help Iraqis resist the occupation of it's country.
Not that I think they are.

bonkey

SteveS wrote:

Do you think Iran shouldn't be an issue?

Your question smacks of the "So you think we should do nothing?" question-responses which inevitably arose to those who said "The path you are taking with Iraq is wrong".

For this reason, I'm unwilling to answer it more than saying Iran should not be the issue that Iran is currently being made out to be, based on the reasoning presented for same.

If you would like to rephrase your question or expand on it, so that you are not apparently suggesting there are only two paths to follow - namely A) what the Administration is doing, and nothing - then I'll be more than happy to discuss this further.

I would rather that those who support the current approach being taken by the Administration justify that approach rather than attempting to put the onus on everyone else.

I shouldn't need to convince the new approach to Iran is wrong. Rather, those who support the change in approach should be able to convince me why the change is right. If they cannot do so without resorting to speculation and/or fabrication, it should be self-evident that regardless of whether or not Iran is an issue, the approach being taken is not based on same.

So go for it.
- Explain why Iran is an issue.
- Explain why what the US is asking of Iran is perfectly in line with what types of imposition the US (or other major nations) would accept being placed on it by other nations.

When you've done that, I'll be in a position to answer the question I've quoted above.

jc

lostexpectation

SteveS wrote:

I only catch their TV shows a few nights a week. Same goes for their radio shows. Off the top of my head, they have been critical of Bush on:
-Illegal Immigration
-Dubai ports deal
-Fiscal policy

thing is the critizing bush for ( what we think) are all the wrong reason...

illegal immigration for not being racist enough!

dubai for not being isolationist and anti-middle-east enough and the democrats jumping on this bandwagon shows how much they are anti-arab too while trying to desperatly assure themselves there are not.

fiscal policy - i don't know so much about, what were they critizing him for?

SteveS

O Reilly and other uber conservatives are giving out because Bush is too soft on Immigration?
That's not much of a consolation to the rest of the world, from all anecdotal evidence, the U.S. immigration system has gone extremely strict.

Their main critique seems to be in regards to the 1000's of people that cross the border from Mexico. I don't see this as racial issue, but I'll admit that it isn't much of a problem where I live. I am about an hour and a half from the Canadian border, and there isn't much of a problem from this end.

So Gore and Kerry were both more evil than George Bush? Or was it just that any democrat will always be the lesser of two evils compared with any republican?

I wouldn't go so far to call Gore, Kerry, or Bush evil. In terms of why I voted the way I did, I would have to say that I agreed with what Bush was saying more that I agreed with what Kerry or Gore were saying. I guess if I had to quantify it, I would say that might have been: Bush 40%, Kerry 25%, and Gore 30%. Some issues are more important than others to me and some would totally rule out a candidate.

I have voted democrat in the past and will continue to do so. I vote mostly on issues and could care less about party affiliation.

Your question smacks of the "So you think we should do nothing?" question-responses which inevitably arose to those who said "The path you are taking with Iraq is wrong".

I apologize if this is how I cam across because it is not what I intended. Obviously, do nothing is one possibility, and one that may have merit. There is also plenty that could be done that is far short of an invasion. I guess my question is what do you think should be done?

So go for it.
- Explain why Iran is an issue.
- Explain why what the US is asking of Iran is perfectly in line with what types of imposition the US (or other major nations) would accept being placed on it by other nations.

Iran, or any country for that matter, developing nuclear weapons is a concern, but it would depend on their intentions. I guess if I were the head of state in Iran, I might want to develop nuclear weapons from a purely defensive standpoint. As for what the US (and other major powers) is asking, it isn't reasonable. It is essentially saying we can have these, but you can't.

I shouldn't need to convince the new approach to Iran is wrong. Rather, those who support the change in approach should be able to convince me why the change is right.

Where did I say that I supported a change in approach? At this time, I don't support doing anything, but watching.

fiscal policy - i don't know so much about, what were they critizing him for?

Bush portrayed himself as a fiscal conservative that wanted to lower taxes and cut spending. He did lower taxes (slightly), but increased spending. Even if you factor out the war(s), spending has remained high.