Latest Bush Lie

[Michael Tee]

Bush is claiming that Iran supports the insurgency in Iraq.  A total absurdity, given that the insurgency is fighting a Shi'ite government that has strong ties to Iran.  More like terroristic threats against Iran by the impotent clown who probably knows that taking on Iran would be an even bigger disaster than taking on Iraq.

Read the whole Paul Craig Roberts article in CounterPunch; here's part:

Bush's "surge" speech is a hoax, but members of Congress and media commentators are discussing the surge as if it were real.

I invite the reader to examine the speech. The "surge" content consists of nonsensical propagandistic statements. The real content of the speech is toward the end where Bush mentions Iran and Syria.

Bush makes it clear that success in Iraq does not depend on the surge. Rather, "Succeeding in Iraq . . . begins with addressing Iran and Syria."

Bush asserts that "these two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops."

Bush's assertions are propagandistic lies.

The Iraq insurgency is Sunni. Iran is Shi'ite. If Iran is supporting anyone in Iraq it is the Shi'ites, who have not been part of the insurgency. Indeed, the Sunni and Shi'ites are engaged in a civil war within Iraq.

Does any intelligent person really believe that Iranian Shi'ites are going to arm Iraqi Sunnis who are killing Iraqi Shi'ites allied with Iran? Does anyone really believe that Iranian Shi'ites are going to provide sanctuary for Iraqi Sunnis?

Bush can tell blatant propagandistic lies, because Congress and the American people don't know enough facts to realize the absurdity of Bush's assertions.

Why is Bush telling these lies? Here is the answer: Bush says, "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Essentially the lies are cover for future widening of the war.  This will be a bigger disaster than Viet Nam because Bush's intended victims can hit back at the U.S. anywhere.  While your dollar will crash through the floor. 

[BT]

Bush is claiming that Iran supports the insurgency in Iraq.  A total absurdity,

So all Bush has to do is prove these claims and you are fine with us crossing the border into Iran to break the supply chain?

[Plane]

This will be a bigger disaster than Viet Nam because Bush's intended victims can hit back at the U.S. anywhere.


[][][][][][][][][][][][][]


In essence you think we are the weaker , and that we would be left alone if we were leaving alone.

I count this as two false premises.

[sirs]

In essence you think we are the weaker , and that we would be left alone if we were leaving alone.  I count this as two false premises.

Must consider the source, Plane     

[Xavier_Onassis]

Picking a fight with Iran would be a very stupid thing to do.

Iran does not want an unstable Iraq next door. I am pretty sure that it does not favor a stronger Kurdistan, either. There is a large number of Kurds in Iran.

It is the NeoCons, who are mostly rabid Zionists, that are rattling the sabers for a war with Iran.


Iran has not been expansionist for a thousand years.


I repeat: Zbinieuw Brzezinski said that the war in Iraq is a colonial war, anbd cannot be won because the era of colonial wars is over and done with.

The US has no business fighting colonial wars, either.

[Amianthus]

Iran has not been expansionist for a thousand years.

Ignoring the Safavid dynasty, ruling over Iran during the 16th-18th centuries?

[Michael Tee]

<<So all Bush has to do is prove these claims and you are fine with us crossing the border into Iran to break the supply chain?>>

I'm actually all in favour of the U.S. taking on the Iranians, with or without proof of anything.  First of all they're a bunch of torturers and murderers who are just as bad as the Americans and secondly it'll be the biggest ass-kicking ever administered to the U.S.A. since the end of the Viet Nam War.  When the U.S. was stretched to the limit in Viet Nam, it had the sense to get out.  When you're stretched to the limit in Iraq and your moron "President" decides to take it up a notch, THAT should be be really interesting.

[Michael Tee]

<<In essence you think we are the weaker , and that we would be left alone if we were leaving alone.>>

You oversimplified. 

You're in a weaker position than Iran because you're bound by more constraints, but you're not "the weaker" in the abstract sense of who's got the most or the least nukes.  You're more vulnerable than Iran.  You can't take punishment like they can.  But you can anihilate Iran and Iran can't anihilate you.

I don't say you'd be left alone if you were leaving alone.  At this point, you have justifiably earned so much hatred that you will be attacked by some regardless of what you do or don't do.  Stopping your aggression and exploitation is only the first step.  It's a long process to restore the good opinion that the world used to have about America, but dumping Bush, or better yet, impeaching him, would be a giant step towards that goal.

[BT]

You can't take punishment like they can.

Well said.

Been that way since Viet Nam

[Plane]

<<In essence you think we are the weaker , and that we would be left alone if we were leaving alone.>>

You oversimplified. 

You're in a weaker position than Iran because you're bound by more constraints, but you're not "the weaker" in the abstract sense of who's got the most or the least nukes.  You're more vulnerable than Iran.  You can't take punishment like they can.  But you can anihilate Iran and Iran can't anihilate you.

I don't say you'd be left alone if you were leaving alone.  At this point, you have justifiably earned so much hatred that you will be attacked by some regardless of what you do or don't do.  Stopping your aggression and exploitation is only the first step.  It's a long process to restore the good opinion that the world used to have about America, but dumping Bush, or better yet, impeaching him, would be a giant step towards that goal.

"You're in a weaker position than Iran because you're bound by more constraints,..."

Yes we ae more civilised, but we could loose constraint in the case of real threat.

[Michael Tee]

<<Yes we ae more civilised, but we could loose constraint in the case of real threat.>>

True, but there is no real threat.  Never has been, and in the foreseeable future, never will be.  YOU are the ones always invading or threatening invasion, it is not the other way round.

[Plane]

<<Yes we ae more civilised, but we could loose constraint in the case of real threat.>>

True, but there is no real threat.  Never has been, and in the foreseeable future, never will be.  YOU are the ones always invading or threatening invasion, it is not the other way round.

So we ar sure to always win in the end?

[Michael Tee]

<<So we ar sure to always win in the end?>>

I sure hope not.  You weren't sure to win in Viet Nam (which I predicted in 1965) and you will likely lose in Iraq.  Iran would be the icing on the cake - - that's where you would get your clock cleaned like it hasn't been cleaned since 1975.  But a lot of innocent Iranians would probably have to lose their lives.

[Plane]

<<So we ar sure to always win in the end?>>

I sure hope not.  You weren't sure to win in Viet Nam (which I predicted in 1965) and you will likely lose in Iraq.  Iran would be the icing on the cake - - that's where you would get your clock cleaned like it hasn't been cleaned since 1975.  But a lot of innocent Iranians would probably have to lose their lives.

Our loss in VietNam has been tragic for VietNam , and all of Vietnam's neighbors .

It is hard to argue that a citizen of Laos or Cambodia has been better off than a Citizen of Thailand or Japan for all (or any )of the last thirty years  , and who really knows how may boat people drowned themselves trying to leave Vietnam?  Is anyone counting Buddist Monks who have immolated themselves recently?


I do not wish the life of a communist onto my worst enemy Cambodia especially became a Hell on Earth as it tried to enforce a communist orthodoxy .

You predicted a US loss in Vietnam five years early?

Did you predict the millions that would die afterwards as a result?

Can you predict the scale of destruction that will follow our failure in Iraq?

[sirs]

I do not wish the life of a communist onto my worst enemy Cambodia especially became a Hell on Earth as it tried to enforce a communist orthodoxy .  You predicted a US loss in Vietnam five years early?  Did you predict the millions that would die afterwards as a result?  Can you predict the scale of destruction that will follow our failure in Iraq?

IMHO Plane, I don't think Tee really cares.  As long as the U.S gets a big bad political black eye, that the american image is as tarnashed & dragged thru the mud as much as possible, as well as whatever American military casualties can be acrued, I think that's all that really matters.  We are the "pure evil" on the globe, and our military is simply a big mass of murderers and rapists, so anything is really justified in taking out such pure evil