I didn't say good Bush, I said best option right now. Better than the alternative, shit, we could have been the ones born in Iran, and not the rich ones here in the US talking politics n the internet.
-- Timothy Heald Analyst, Architect, Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: 202-228-8372 C: 703-300-3911 -----Original Message----- From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:26 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Bush reconfirms nuking Iran, sorry :) wow. I am in awe, seriously. Denial is a powerful force. Tim, you've never heard of Seymour Hersh, have you. Or have you just never read careful reporting before? The article may well be coming out of Langley or the Pentagon -- *it says those are its sources.* I see this as CIA/military concern over the numbnuts running the current planning. That does not make it untrue. In fact, odds are that every word of it is. But why try to educate you guys? Your minds are made up and...This stuff gets old. Let me just make sure I have the patter down. Bush good. Chavez bad. Muslim evil. Ug. Dana >"American and European intelligence agencies, and the International >Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on >developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons." > >"...and that it will not be delayed or deterred." > >"Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?" > >"this Administration is putting a lot of effort into diplomacy." > >"Ahmadinejad "sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. >We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates." > >"it would be prudent to prepare for a wider war, "given the way the >Iranians are acting. This is not like planning to invade Quebec."" > >"White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and >clandestine activities amount to a campaign of "coercion" aimed at Iran." > >""As the President has indicated, we are pursuing a diplomatic >solution"; the Defense Department also said that Iran was being dealt >with through "diplomatic channels"" > >"the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the >hearts and minds of Iran." - Because you win the hearts and minds by >dropping THE BOMB right? > >Dana, read that article it it's entirety, OMG, I haven't read a better >piece of propaganda ever. I mean, seriously the best run psyops >operation I have ever read. That was written in the pentagon, or in >some office at the NSA or in Langley. Can't you see how non-committal >everything is? How nothing is written in black. > >Is the TACTICAL nuclear weapon an option? Yes, it is. Is it the only >option? Of course not. As a matter of fact the only thing in black >and white is that the administration is very diplomatically involved >with Iran now, and that everyone is still talking. Why is it the ONLY >option in your eyes? Can't you see, Special Operations missions were >mentioned, conventional bombing was mentioned, diplomatic penalties >against Iran were mentioned. > >Does this administration want regime change in Iran? Of course it >does, don't you? > >Is it going to invade? I doubt it, but it's not like anyone can say >that we don't have good reason to do so. The President of Iran >threatened to unleash a storm of suicide bombers in the US if we didn't >back out, GG just reported about the muslims chanting about the >mushroom cloud coming to Israel, those same people have had no problems >blowing up and seizing our embassies around the world, they wouldn't >have problem say walking into your kids school, or the movie theater, >or a city bus, or maybe at the world series just to make a point. > > >-- >Timothy Heald >Analyst, Architect, Developer >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >W: 202-228-8372 >C: 703-300-3911 >-----Original Message----- >From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 4:30 PM >To: CF-Community >Subject: Re: Bush reconfirms nuking Iran, sorry :) > >I think this will be the fifth time I have posted it and the third time >in this thread. But ok. It is rather important to my opinion that the >things you are saying are the administration's public statements only, >so here it is again. > >http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact > >Delighted to be of service ;) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:205370 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
