In case you missed it

[Freak Out]

I heard that the USS Ronald Reagan battle group would join them in the gulf soon.


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iran24jan24,1,3833570.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true

[CaptainKickass]

Next time try copy and paste plz. I ain't signing up for the LA times.

[Freak Out]

Next time try copy and paste plz. I ain't signing up for the LA times.

Sorry bout that....

U.S. ships headed to Mideast called a warning to Iran
From the Associated Press

January 24, 2007

DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES — A second U.S. aircraft carrier group steaming toward the Middle East is Washington's way of warning Iran to back down in its attempts to dominate the region, a top U.S. diplomat said Tuesday.

R. Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of State for political affairs, ruled out direct negotiations with Tehran and said rapprochement was "not possible" until Iran halted its uranium enrichment program.

"The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran," Burns said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, a think tank. "The [Persian] Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region."

Iran is in a standoff with the West over its defiance of United Nations demands to halt uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for nuclear energy or for nuclear weapons.

Iran says its atomic program is aimed solely at generating energy, but the U.S. and some of its allies suspect it is geared toward weapons. The U.N. imposed limited sanctions on Iran last month.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday accused the U.S. of stirring up conflict between rival Muslim sects.

"The U.S. intends to cause insecurity and dispute and weaken independent governments in the region to continue with its dominance over the Middle East," Ahmadinejad said during a meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem.

In an interview with state-run television in Iran, Ahmadinejad spoke with confidence about his nation's ability to withstand a possible strike.

"The United States is unable to inflict serious damage on Iran," Ahmadinejad said. He also said his goals were peaceful. "Iran is not seeking confrontation with anybody," he said.

The aircraft carrier John C. Stennis and accompanying ships are headed toward the Persian Gulf to join the carrier group already in the region, the Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Stennis is expected to arrive in late February.

Some members of the audience in Dubai complained that American wars in the Middle East were threatening the region's stability and asked Burns and the U.S. to sort out Iraq and the Israel-Palestinian conflict before focusing on Iran.

"What we are not interested in is another war in the region," Mohammed Naqbi, who heads the Gulf Negotiations Center, told Burns. "Iraq is your problem, not the problem of the Arabs. You destroyed a country that had institutions. You handed that country to Iran. Now you are crying to Europe and the Arabs to help you out of this mess."

[Joemailman]

It's funny and sad at the same time that the Bush administration invades Iraq and then complains when another country from that region tries to flex its muscles. They removed Saddam, the one Arab leader capable of providing a counterweight to Iran, and now see Iran trying to spread its influence. What the hell did they expect to happen? Perhaps the only good thing about the mess in Iraq is that it may prevent a full scale invasion of Iran, which was probably part of the plan to begin with.

[Freak Out]

It's not over yet. The cowards in Congress gave the White House the power to do just about anything they desire in regards to the "War on Terror" and Iraq without ever having to go back to them for any kind of approval except for money when it comes to military action... I think many would make the argument that Iran fits right in to that fight.

[red]

did you guys see yesterday where bush said, he was the one that controled what happens in the middle east, not congress or anyone else.

the guy sounds like he's insane with power at this point. 70 percent or so of the country says they don't like the direction of the war, then a day or two later he goes no 60 minutes and says he has to keep going this way, or he couldn't look at himself in the mirror. he said he has to stick with what HE believes.

he only cares about what he wants to do, he doesn't get it that he works for us. he cares about his legacy and nothing else IMO. he's desperate, up till this point, he either hasn't done anything, or failed at what he's tried to do. he's desperate to get one thing right, the war. the sad thing is he's wasting american lives and innocent iraqi lives in order to try and fix HIS image, and HIS mess.

[oregonpackfan]

Red,

I share with you my anguish over the way Bush has led us into this deceitful way.

At the same time, I disagree with you that Bush is concerned about his legacy. In is my opinion, he does not care about his legacy. I don't think he has the foresight to see issues in the "Big Picture."

What concerns me is that he rarely listens to the recommendations of those with greater knowledge and experience than he has.

In invading Iraq, he ignored the reports of 800 United Nations weapons inspectors and 600 American weapons inspectors that Saddah Hussain did not have "Weapons of Mass destruction."

He ignored his own bipartisan 9/11 Commission which concluded that Hussain had nothing to do with al-Qaida or the 9/11 hijackings. For years, Bush continued to state that Hussain was deeply involved with al-Qaida.

In his recent call for a 21,500 troop surge in Iraq, he ignored the bipartisan findings of the Iraq Study Group which discouraged a surge. The ISG also recommeded the USA begin dialogues with Iran and Syria. Bush rufuses to talk with them.

He also ignored the recommedations of his own Joint Chiefs of Staff about a surge.

I can only speculate just who he listens too. Perhaps it is just a few close associates like Dick Cheney or Karl Rove. Part of me thinks he is determined to just "Go his own way." This sole vision scares me as Bush is a President of modest foreign relations expertise. He is also a President of modest intelligence.

It is my opinion that years from now, many historians will conclude that George W. Bush was the worst President this country has ever had.

OPF

[Freak Out]

He's just doing what God tells him to do.

[digitaldean]

IMO (lengthy post warning)...

I feel this country has lost a grasp what has transpired over the last 5-6 years.

I grant that the Iraqi war is at a crossroads. But the war was a necessity considering what had transpired.

Saddam had a WMD arsenal and had used it before. He used it on his own people as well as invading Kuwait in the 90's.

He bypassed the sanctions that were supposed to bring him in line. But thanks to the corrupt UN, he took the oil money and let his people suffer. He violated the terms of the cease fire from THE FIRST GULF WAR. He persistently fired on US aircraft patrolling in the No Fly Zones of that country.

How many UN Sec. Council resolutions be passed and ignored before something gets done?

In light of the 9/11 attacks and the multiple countries supplying intelligence reports about what Saddam had in WMD, what was done was a necessity. On top of that, he had Ansar al-Islam (division of AlQaeda) in the North, nothing was done. He gave safe haven to likes of Abu Abbas (renowned terrorist responsible Achille Lauro hijacking in the 80s).

In fact, Saddam had another terrorist in his country, Abu Nidal (a veteran PLO butcher). Saddam later had him killed because he didn't want to train Al Qaeda fighters based in Iraq.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml

You may think President Bush is wrong and wish to disagree with him. That is your right. You may think that he's crazy because "he's calling the shots". But don't depict him as some bloodthirsty madman who is guided by "voices" or "what God tells him to do."

Before you take more potshots, take a look back at your history books! Lincoln was depicted as an idiot by the press, he was despised because of his tactics of suspending habeus corpus and how the war was going (which was horrific for the first 2-1/2 to 3 years).

Pres. Bush realizes that if we leave now, we leave the Iranians free reign to take over the country. Given their sponsorship of terrorism and their push for nukes, that can't happen.

It's easy for us to backseat drive. If those who oppose the plan have a better solution, come up with one. (negotiating with Pres. Ahmadinejad of Iran isn't one of them).

I disagree with this President on some issues. But the war in Iraq was justified. I can only fault him for not allowing the rules of engagement be more clearly defined much, much sooner.

Most of Iraq is peaceful. Baghdad and Anbar province are the hotbeds of insurgency and terrorist attacks. Kurdish north is peaceful and so is the south.

The Iraqis will sooner or later have to defend themselves. I just do not agree this is the correct time to leave.

There is an interesting article in the N.Y. Sun regarding what's happening in Baghdad and it's pretty clear about the situation there. I would copy/paste it but this post is pretty long as it is.....
http://www.nysun.com/article/47363

[oregonpackfan]

Digaldean,

I disagree with your justifications for the Iraq War.

First of all, Saddam Hussain did NOT have weapons of mass destruction which were a threat to the security of the United States. Bush repeatedly emphasized this false claim of WMDs to the American people.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell presented Bush's claim of Hussain"s WMD to the United Nations. Though Hussain did used chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds, that capability was never a threat to American Security.

Of the 19 Arab hijackers on those 4 planes for the 9/11 tragedy, NONE of them were from Iraq. It should be noted that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia.

It should also be noted the al-Qaida leader of 9/11, Osama bin Laden is also from Sauda Arabia, not Iraq.

We need to remember that at the time of September 11, 2001, the Arab country that had the largest number of of al-Qaida training camps was none other than Saudia Arabia.

The United States has taken no action against Saudi Arabia. Why? Because Saudi Arabi is the #1 importer of Mideast oil to the United States.

This is what the Iraq war is truly about--securing American access to Mideast, specifically, Iraqi oil. All the other alleged reasons for the War--WMD's, Hussain's alleged ties to 9/11 and al-Qaida, getting rid of a terrible dictator, bringing democracy to a country that doesn't want it, viewing Iraq as the center of Mideast terrorism, are just smokescreens to securing Iraqi oil.

The question we Americans need to ask is: Do we really want to keep sacrificing American lives and billions of dollars on a sectarian war based on false pretenses?

[Joemailman]

There's not much that I can add to what OPF said. Suffice to say that the Bush Administration was looking for a reason to attack Iraq before 9/11, but lacked a reason to justify it to the American people. The argument that we had to take out Saddam Hussein, or he would attack us is one that many Americans, including DigitalDean, have bought hook, line and sinker.

[digitaldean]

Digaldean,

I disagree with your justifications for the Iraq War.

First of all, Saddam Hussain did NOT have weapons of mass destruction which were a threat to the security of the United States. Bush repeatedly emphasized this false claim of WMDs to the American people.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell presented Bush's claim of Hussain"s WMD to the United Nations. Though Hussain did used chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds, that capability was never a threat to American Security.

Of the 19 Arab hijackers on those 4 planes for the 9/11 tragedy, NONE of them were from Iraq. It should be noted that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia.

It should also be noted the al-Qaida leader of 9/11, Osama bin Laden is also from Sauda Arabia, not Iraq.

We need to remember that at the time of September 11, 2001, the Arab country that had the largest number of of al-Qaida training camps was none other than Saudia Arabia.

The United States has taken no action against Saudi Arabia. Why? Because Saudi Arabi is the #1 importer of Mideast oil to the United States.

This is what the Iraq war is truly about--securing American access to Mideast, specifically, Iraqi oil. All the other alleged reasons for the War--WMD's, Hussain's alleged ties to 9/11 and al-Qaida, getting rid of a terrible dictator, bringing democracy to a country that doesn't want it, viewing Iraq as the center of Mideast terrorism, are just smokescreens to securing Iraqi oil.

The question we Americans need to ask is: Do we really want to keep sacrificing American lives and billions of dollars on a sectarian war based on false pretenses?

So all of this is "Bush lied, Bush lied!"? If all of this is about oil, why don't we have more oil in America? :roll:

True the 9/11 hijackers were from predominantly Saudi families. Never said that they were tied to Iraq. But alQaeda had a working relationship with Saddam.

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, stated: "In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq". (this isn't Pres. Bush this is Clinton stating this).

Never said that Saudi Arabia was clean as the wind driven snow, either. Their brand of Wahabi-ism (sect of Islam) is more radical than the Shi'a or Sunni sects. I don't care for those types of allies in the Mideast, either.

As for democracy for a country that doesn't want it... why the heck were there so many Iraqi people risking their lives standing in line for the parliamentary and constitutional elections?

If Saddam DIDN'T have WMD, why did Saddam play the stupid shell game with the UN inspectors for years?

In the eyes of those who have replied, I am easily fooled. Again, it's your right to feel that way. But I am no conservative hack, I get my news and info. from a variety of sources. So I am not an uninformed person who buys everything hook, line and sinker.

Even after the disagreement on the original topic, I still haven't heard any plan other than just leaving.

[billy_oliver880]

How long will it be till I get drafted and sent off to fight? :?