I hope not,

more moms without their childs, more childs without their moms.
More pain, tears and agony.

THIS COULD BE HEAVEN!

Not all of those are combat front line units chief. Take into account how many are on a single aircraft carrier. Do you think they are going to the front line? How about airplane mechanics? You think they will be marching through Tekret?

:disgust :disgust :disgust :disgust

Sure. In total numbers, there are more available. However you are not considering how many are support, and administratives.

shit, not many people on this board have faith with peace.

Perhaps they are are brainwashed Zionists :winkwink: :winkwink: :winkwink:

I'm not at all sure you are right. Look at events of the last few years (and apart from being more overt, they are otherwise typical of US foreign policy under numerous presidents from both parties).

Before 9/11 we were already gearing up to invade Afghanistan. Within hours of 9/11 happening, we were blaming Osama Bin Laden. The Russians hadn't been able to kill or capture him when they occupied the country, but the inability of the Taliban to exile or capture him was apparently reason enough to invade a country which no-one even attempted to claim was in any shape or form a danger to us. The only extra spin we added to the emotions fostered by 9/11 was to point out that by our standards, the Taliban weren't very nice people.

Not only did we invade Afghanistan, we are still there years later despite not having found, let alone captured Bin Laden. Apart from the deaths of American troops and thousands of Afghanis, the most obvious consequence of that invasion is that the opium crop in Afghanistan has never been bigger. And we are stuck there because we displaced the only people - like them or not - who had the power to rule the country.

The American public got behind the invasion of Iraq for similarly emotional and equally spurious reasons. The cost to both sides has been even greater. And we are stuck there too, because even if there is no victory (except insofar as chaos was probably the intent from day one) if we stay, pulling out would be perceived as defeat.

So to Iran, guilty of some saber rattling: the Shia's in southern Iraq have not been totally docile and Hezbollah in Lebanon stirred up the Israelis last year. But in both instances, the activities have been considerably restrained, which strongly suggests that Iran is keeping a tight rein. And despite the occasional inflammatory rhetoric intended mainly for the folks at home, since the 1970's Iran has been quietly but consistently building political and economic ties with Europe. Finally there is their nuclear program, but as with Iraq, the reports which the US public generally do not hear about, are nowhere near as clear as - often even contradictory of - the stories coming out of the White House.

In other words, the US public is being set up once more to support a military adventure, by being fed a mix of half truths, exaggeration and lies. What Iran actually says or intends, is presumably known in Washington. But even if so, it is not going to be apparent to the likes of you and me, so long as such knowledge might get in the way of the administration's plans.

Bush sux0r, its all about oil.

Go to "war"? Probably not full scale war it wouldnt be much of a war Iran LOST its war to Iraq so the USA could probably defeat it "militarily" within days.

:1orglaugh The clueless is here ....

What else would it be about?

This is probably the dumbest comment I've ever made, but if the slave trade involved arabs, the US would probably be waring in Africa and pussyfooting around the middle east.

Just a thought.

For George W. Bush, it was sold to him as a vengeance for the humiliation that Saddam was doing to his dad ... George bought that easy, since he is not very smart ... The oil factor for him was a small factor.

For the Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz and the other hawks, it was naturally oil ... They played Bush and he fell for it ...

One thing it was not about was the well being of the Iraqi population or the stabilization of the middle-east.

If only.....

youd have thought the yanks didnt go to a "war" when they were against a bunch of viets with just spears and spikeforks, but that was called a war. irans miilatary power is nothing compared to usa. but problems arise. just like they did in vietnam

please vote 12clicks!

Probably true.

i sure hope not

Zionist shmionist. I'm about ridiculing mindless hate-mongering monkeys such as yourself until your nuts fester.

That's all.


zionist.... lol. Go shoot someone, idiot.

Alla akbar ahooy

this "midget" happens to be smarter then 70% of you gfy dumbasses

He just wants to get rid of spyware..why attack him?!

With all the opposition I dont think it will be during Bushs period. Unless something extraordinary happens. U never know.

yeh, i read in the paper a few days ago that one senior congress official said that if bush went to war then congress may stop him

dont know the validity of that, but reminds me of 24!

bush isnt the only reason for going to war.. you saw the approval ratings about going to war? I mean Hillary DID vote to go in

Fuck ratings... The King and his black emminence are at work ...:



US accused of drawing up plan to bomb Iran

An extensive article in the New Yorker magazine by the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh describes the contingency bombing plan as part of a general overhaul by the Bush administration of its policy towards Iran.

...

Elements of the tough new approach towards Tehran outlined by Hersh include:

· Clandestine operations against Iran and Syria, as well as the Hizbullah movement in Lebanon - even to the extent of bolstering Sunni extremist groups that are sympathetic to al-Qaida

· Sending US special forces into Iranian territory in pursuit of Iranian operatives, as well as to gather intelligence

· Secret operations are being funded by Saudi Arabia to avoid scrutiny by Congress. "There are many, many pots of black money, scattered in many places and used all over the world on a variety of missions," Hersh quotes a Pentagon consultant as saying.

As in the run-up to the Iraq war, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, has bypassed other administration officials to take charge of the aggressive new policy, working along with the deputy national security adviser, Elliott Abrams, and the former ambassador to Kabul and Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad.

Mr Cheney is also relying heavily on Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security adviser, who spent 22 years as ambassador to the US, and who has been offering his advice on foreign policy to Mr Bush since he first contemplated running for president.

....

Hersh, who made his reputation by breaking the story of the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war, was among the first US journalists to report on the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. Although the most explosive material was supplied by unnamed sources, his status in US journalism made his latest report an immediate talking point on yesterday's TV chatshows.



Peace and democracy have such an aftertaste .....

SOME of America?s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1434540.ece

Divide and Conquer - he is going for an East/West split.

His mistake is that China will take the lead role if that happens - or maybe not a mistake at all?

IMHO.

Sure they need oil

So sad and barbaric...

But doesnt the USA have death penalty as well?

:error Wow you really play the racist moron well :1orglaugh I am from Europe too so please don't make out that all Europeans are as stupid and bigoted as you ! :321GFY

you have a cock up your brain

bump for world politics

Thwe British Nave is already there and sending more warships to the area...its gonna happen

we never fucking learn

not really this way they will catch all the world

WTF ?? you base this on what ? the fact you have a cock up his ass instead ?? I am not saying we should go to war with Iran but out of all the countries in the world who you wouldn't trust with Nukes Iran would be top of the list lets be honest within ten years of Iran having a bomb they'll either use it or pass it to someone who will !, or are you not capable of a reasoned argument with that cloud of hate over your eyes !
Why do all Muslim/Arab countries support each other regardless and then shout bloody murder when the UK supports the US on anything or any western country objects to being told that they should be annihilated !
I dont know why i am bothering to answer you anyway tard !

Iran invest more and more money to get a nuclear ability and threatens with the destruction of Israel and an optional nuclear war against anyone that can have different views then they hold.

why should soldiers love war ?:)

its funny watching trash talk about peace.
Yes, our enemies are brilliant peace loving people and if we'd just make friends, we'd all get along.
luckily, trash like this never gets close to leadership

usual pointless reply ... next!

You mean we aren't? Pffft!

This is the best pro war argument yet LOL. Reality TV at its best.

Shakula....I have a question for you, will you answer it?

you just asked it.

5 year bump.

heck of a bump there cdsmith.

I rarely bump oldies, but when I do it's usually because I was drinking Dos Equis.



http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...9_215378_n.jpg