Thread: Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian

Remember, even Colin Powell was lied to:

Ex-secretary of state Colin Powell called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain how he was given unreliable information which proved key to the US case for invading Iraq, the Guardian reported Wednesday.

Powell’s landmark speech to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, cited intelligence about Iraq leader Saddam Hussein’s bioweapons programme gained from a defector, codenamed Curveball.

But he has now admitted that he lied to topple the dictator, in an interview with the Guardian.

“It has been known for several years that the source called Curveball was totally unreliable,” Powell told the British newspaper.

“The question should be put to the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) as to why this wasn’t known before the false information was put into the (report) sent to Congress, the president’s state of the union address and my 5 February presentation to the UN.”

It was known, but like Downing Street said, Bush was fixing the intelligence around the policy. And of course Bush entered the WH with a policy of regime change in Iraq. His first foreign policy meeting was to discuss just that. And as PNAC stated, all that was needed was a new Pearl Harbor and the neocons could implement everything they wanted to.

Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian

Well, the problem is, you're one of the very few who think that if we sell a bullet to one side or both sides in a war, we're somehow at war, too. Of course the fact that very few think this way doesn't automatically mean you're wrong...but dude, you're going to have a very, very hard time convincing almost every historian ever born that they're wrong about what constitutes wartime status of a nation.

Well, in a sense I suppose. But seemed to me that as the largest military arms dealer in the world, that Dave was focussing more on the typical MIC (business) capitalisation of it.

Originally Posted by kjwins

Obama, Bush. same guy different party. More than enough blame to go around. Lets just not turn Bush into a hero. As the right has done with Reagan.

Thing is these guys are just tools for the corporate state. That's were the power is. Only the American people can fix this. But it won't be by fighting over who is worse.

The vast majority of DP posters are partisans on one or the other side, and protection and perpetuation of their parties power trumps what's good for America.

Originally Posted by MMC

Oh gee that's nice you found something favorable on BO. They like him. Did you miss the French calling BO an Amateur in the Iranian Negotiations just a little over a weak ago?

What happened with the Saud not contacting BO with their offensive into Yemen....until their planes were in the air and ready to cross over into Yemen? Why do you think they called BO at the very last minute? Why has the Saud criticized him saying he can't be trusted?

Which says nothing of Netanyahu who has criticized him. Nor the UAE and Egypt.

Why do the reports with those in South and Central America don't find him so favorable?????

Criticism by one politician does not necessarily equate with public opinion in the politician's nation.

All this said, however much disappointment global publics may have in Barack Obama, they still prefer him to his predecessor George W. Bush. In 2008, the year he left office, a median of just 19 percent in 20 nations had confidence in Bush’s handling of world affairs, compared with 57 percent that still have confidence in Obama in those same countries.

Yeah, I did miss the French calling Obama an amateur - care to provide a link?

Under our current leadership, I would have to say no. If we had decent leadership, then the answer would undoubtedly be no. A "military strike" is not the answer, complete annihilation of the current regime would have to be the goal. Iran, besides seeking nuclear weapons, is a major supporter of terrorism and the unrest in the region.

We have seen Iranians in Bosnia-Herzegovina during that conflict. We saw them coming in from Syria during our struggles in Iraq and were suppliers for the Shia faction "insurgents". We see them behind unrest in Yemen and other Shia backed uprisings in many areas in the region. They are supporters of the Assad regime. They have in past and continue to sponsor terrorism against Israel. They are the key sponsors and supporters of almost all Shia faction terrorism throughout the world.

Originally Posted by Montecresto

It was known, but like Downing Street said, Bush was fixing the intelligence around the policy. And of course Bush entered the WH with a policy of regime change in Iraq. His first foreign policy meeting was to discuss just that. And as PNAC stated, all that was needed was a new Pearl Harbor and the neocons could implement everything they wanted to.

But of course the conservative line is that the Dems in Congress voted for it...and they refuse to acknowledge that the Dems who voted for it had been lied to just like even Colin Powell had been lied to.

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Well, in a sense I suppose. But seemed to me that as the largest military arms dealer in the world, that Dave was focussing more on the typical MIC (business) capitalisation of it.

True. And it shows the truth in your signature line.