Hold on to your kids. Their next stop? Tehran.

Not only that, but I read they are thinking of raising the current age for enlistment to the ripe old age of 42. So, I guess, it works hand-in-hand with outsourcing. Your job moves overseas, you collect unemployment (if you can live on that) until your benefits run out, and then enlist so you'll get a check. Be all that you can be.

 

We are not going to attack Iran.

The draft is not coming back for the forseeable future.

Israel is not going to attack Iran, either - LINK

The scaremongering that goes on on this board is ridiculous.

 

You didn't call it "scarmongering" a few months ago when you were going on and on about how you switched back to the Republican party and supported Bush because of this "war on terror." You didn't call it "scarmongering" when you declared this fight to be "World War III." What gives?

 

You didn't call it "scarmongering" a few months ago when you were going on and on about how you switched back to the Republican party and supported Bush because of this "war on terror." You didn't call it "scarmongering" when you declared this fight to be "World War III." What gives? </font>[/QUOTE]When the neocons engage in this type of rhetoric it's called "emphasis" Terry. For anyone else it's scaremongering. Right Ken?

 

We are engaged in a real war in Iraq, in a real war with al Qaeda.

That' reality, not creating a bunch of hoopla about "WE'RE GOING TO ATTACK IRAN" or "THE DRAFT IS GOING TO BE REINSTATED", etc., etc., ad nauseum.

 

We are engaged in a real war in Iraq, in a real war with al Qaeda.

That' reality, not creating a bunch of hoopla about "WE'RE GOING TO ATTACK IRAN" or "WE'RE GOING TO ATTACK IRAN", etc., etc., ad nauseum. </font>[/QUOTE]The pretexts for invading Iraq was mostly made of hoopla from the begining. The official policy was the removal of Saddam. Problem the American people probably wouldn't go along with policy without the proper "emphasis" being massaged in the ole cranium of the collective with a sledge hammer.

I suspect that the greater share of events attributed to Al-Qaeda and it's masterminds, is mostly hoopla in keeping with the neocon noble lie theory amd using enough "emphasis" to convince the puplic to go along with policy. The policy can be found in The Grand Chessboard and at PNAC .

 

PNAC, smeeNAC.

 

Our craniums are being massaged with "emphasis" once again. But we won't be fooled by it this time will we Ken?

 

What are Oklahoma troops doing in Arkansas?
Who are they defending, them Oklahoma boys?
Why are they dying in a foriegn land?
I ain't lettin' my son go there

Thank you, I'd rather say:

What are Oklahoma troops doing in Iran?
Who are they defending, them Oklahoma
military children?
Why are they dying in a foriegn land?
I ain't lettin' my grandson/grandaughter
go there

 

I propose an American Foreign Legion. WE lease a few thousand acres in the most miserably poor country in the world for a base and then offer American citizenship no questions asked for anyone who puts in 8 or 10 years. They would fight foreign wars and not steo foot in the USofA until time served.

 

I seriously doubt that the Iran dispute will require force, but if Pres. Bush had said that under no circumstances would we ever use force, then Iran knows that all they have to do is not give in to diplomatic pressure, and they've won.

Even if force is required, I doubt that a full-scale invasion would be the MO. Cruise missiles and air strikes could do the job, IMO.

 

The bar will be much, much higher for any future congressional resolution like the one for the attack on Iraq.

Folks like me who support the Iraq war will have two words coming out of our mouth if we are presented evidence that another country is a threat to our security - "Prove it."

 

Ed,

What in the world are you talking about?

 

Ed,

What in the world are you talking about? </font>[/QUOTE]JB---you done "messed up" now, MAN!!!

Don't ever ask Ed what he's talkin' about----he'll "filibuster" ya!!! Right here on the board!!

 

If he does that, I will invoke the Nuclear Option...and there will be no compromise from me...

Joseph Botwinick

 

Oh my goodness! Hide under the bed, maybe they wont notice!

I agree. This is ridiculous.

You know, whenever I am full of fear, I just pray. Why dont you try that instead?

 

The bar will be much, much higher for any future congressional resolution like the one for the attack on Iraq.

Folks like me who support the Iraq war will have two words coming out of our mouth if we are presented evidence that another country is a threat to our security - "Prove it." </font>[/QUOTE]Prove that nuclear device that was detonated in one or more of our major cities was an Al-Qaeda or Irianian plot? Yeah right.

The policy is to attack Iran, in the case of that happening not to figure out "who done it" and act accordingly.

A recent poll shows six in ten Americans think a new world war is coming: the same poll says about 50 percent approve of the dropping of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Somewhat inexplicably, about two-thirds say nuking those two cities was "unavoidable." One can only wonder, then, what their reaction will be to this ominous news, revealed in a recent issue of The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

Two points leap out at the reader – or, at least, this reader – quite apart from the moral implications of dropping nukes on Iran. The first is the completely skewed logic: if Iran has nothing to do with 9/11-II, then why target Tehran? As in Iraq, it's all a pretext: only this time, the plan is to use nuclear weapons. We'll wipe out the entire population of Iran's capital city because, as Paul Wolfowitz said in another context, "it's doable."

The other weird aspect of this "nuke Iran" story is the triggering mechanism: a terrorist attack in the U.S. on the scale of 9/11. While it is certain that our government has developed a number of scenarios for post-attack action, one has to wonder: why develop this plan at this particular moment? What aren't they telling us?

I shudder to think about it

SOURCE

 

Undoubtly if (and I pray it doesn't happen) a nuclear device was detonated in the USA the paper work and ID's of the terrorists would be found in good condition and just hours after the explosion again. Terrorists seem to always use bombproof/fireproof ID and leave countless clues behind so we know who dunnit after the deed is done. Stupid terrorists.