It was breaking news all over the TV last night but I didn't pay attention long enough to see exactly what a "missile" was defined as.

Personally I think this is just pro-Iran invasion propaganda broadcasted to the public to get an "OMG Iran is firing missiles, we have to stop them!!" sort of reaction from the populace. No doubt it probably happend, but that's how propaganda works. A few months ago I also saw that the US Navy and Iran almost started a war when Iran allegedly made threats to open fire and didn't back down. Whether or not that story, and this one for that matter are completely factual, who knows.

I wonder what else our current Executive Administration can dish out to guarentee an Iran war over the next 4 to 8 years. I wouldn't take any of it seriously after they COMPLETELY lied about Iraq and are still blundering around over there.

edit: here's a link

Oh hell, cunnilingus rice is going to fuck shit up for everyone.

Figures..

It seems Bush is just a Zionist puppett that lies about wanting peace instead of war.

Oh yea, we already know this.

But if he wanted to curtail the war with Iran he would deny Israel over-flying Iraq. But then there are the puppeteers and his Big Oil buddies will not reap the rewards from the high prices at the gas pumps that will follow.

Bush didn't lie, and we're winning the war.

The longest range of the 3 tested:


I think this missile was in response to the recent Israeli airforce exercise. Israel says "we have the air power to take out key installations in your country", Iran replies by saying "and we have the power to launch warheads at your country".

I think this is more likely to turn into a Cold War redux, rather than a full scale war. At any rate, as things stand at the moment it is very unlikely that the US would become directly involved, certainly not in the sense of putting troops on the ground.

Iran is not a threat to the United States.

Iran is a threat to Isreal.

We have spent ENOUGH money on Israeli military they should be able to handle any threat in the region, except China.

Time to pop the titty, out Israels mouth, and let it grow up to be a real country.

---------

Pro-Iran-war assholes in our leadership positions, do not even want to invade Iran to help Israel or help secure America. They want to make money from the warmachine, and the oil, and if the side effects of that please some dumb shits for whatever reason, the better.

Dipfucks who say "We should help Israel" should realize that not even our leaders give a fuck about Israel.

Grown ass people should recognized when they are being spoonfed.

I wouldn't say being bled out trillions of dollars is 'winning the war'

ow...my brain....

If the admistration did not lie to get us in to war, and it really was just bad intel...why didn't the U.N. (who did not give us permission, citing a lack of evidence as the reason) receive this same bad intel?

You cannot win, or even appear to be winning, until you have established criteria for victory.

What is the criteria for victory and how are we closer today?

We are certainly not winning the war on terror.

While we are blundering around in Iraq, 100 terrorist escaped from a prison in Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? It was the state sponser of the terrorists who attacked us.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

500 billion. Not trillions. And I wouldn't say how much money it costs is a very good determinate of whether we're winning or not.

[quote]

Whether or not we are winning this "war" can be widely debated but you really need to re-think the first part of your statement. Why?

-Bush claimed Iraq was directly related to 9/11, then after the invasion said it had nothing to do with it.

-Bushed claimed Saddam harbored and supplied Al-Qaeda, but didn't. They found evidence that Iraq supported terrorism, but not Al-Qaeda as Bush specifically stated.

-Bushed claimed Iraq had "WMDs", and they didn't.


You're pretty damn ill-informed for spending your time on a political message board when there are tons of this information on the web.

I'd like to tell you a story, Zman:

Once upon a time there was a son who worked in the WTC with a father who worked for the NYPD. The son was killed during the 9/11 attacks and the father wanted some kind of way to avenge him. After the attacks Bush claimed Iraq was directly responsible for carrying out the attacks, so he wanted to get back at them in some way in honor of his son. He wrote to government officials prior to the May 20th, 2003 bombings of Baghdad saying that he wanted his son's name written on a bomb they would drop on Iraq. The NY police officer got his wish but was infuriated when Bush came out after the invasion and admitted there wasn't any connection between Iraq and 9/11. To this day the man thinks he failed his son.

If they had different intelligence, they never spoke up...And speaking of lying, take a look at what the previous administration said about Iraq.


The Iraqis being able to take care of themselves. And they are. They're fighting militias, fighting Al-Qaeda, more benchmarks have been met, violence is down dramatically.



While we should have more resources in Afghanistan, I'm not sure what your point is. What does that have to do with Iraq?

I don't think losing a war in Iraq is going to help us in Afghanistan.

No, he didn't.

That is still in question. Saddam probably did.

For example, in June 2008 the Senate found that

"Statements that Iraq provided safe have for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa'ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments. Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi's presence in the country."

Clinton claimed the same thing, and Iraq never really proved that they didn't.




Oh, my God, I'm going to cry. This totally changes everything.

Shut the fuck up, retard.

Oh yes, yes he did. Damn boy you are ignorant and must be blind and deaf to not see all the recorded press conference videos of him saying, "Iraq is directly related to the attacks on September 11th" and then in subsequent press conferences claim Iraq in fact didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

...Aww, you were being so official and polite before you just had to blurt this out. Hey fuckhead, I can call other people names to!!

Well, then post a Youtube video of him saying what you just quoted him as saying and I'll concede the argument.

I don't even think Iran is a real threat to Israel. Ahmadinejhad, in my opinion, won't do anything because he doesn't have the power, and he won't usurp the Ayatollah.

BTW: http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...els-pwned.html

Also, some of the rocket plume between the ground and exhaust is shooped between the inner missiles.

__________________
Stalker: sentenced to life.

a war with Iran would mean pulling every troop and military hardware out of Iraq to deal with Iran. So a war with Iran would be a perfect way to "cut and run" as bush and mccain put it, without "surrendering to the enemy". Basicly its a way for them to say fuck you to iraq. Bomb the fuck out of Iran, then go home and say we cant police the middle east. Then start saving 150 billion$+ a year.

still a lot of money dude :O

If we spend more then they do and they don't have to use as much resources or can replenish them, etc yes it does. They can bleed our economy to death, or make it worse/accelerate/make it faster/etc and they could still have a relatively-intact organization; or at worse a pyrrhic victory. War of Attrition dude.

Remind me never to press 'view post' on you again.

You keep saying that, but you always do again.

the last video again

the old guy
bush

3:11 - 3:21

I'm not quoting him directly, that's what he's saying.

No, that's not what he's saying...What you have done is put in quotes two things that George Bush didn't say. You lied.

Bush didn't say Saddam was responsible for 9/11. I'm sorry. You lose.

A far superior source is the Congressional Budget Office, which echoes roughly the same (larger) figures, but also provides details on what those costs cover.

Very conspicious by their absence from the war-related costs are the reconstruction and mercenary costs, which we also pay for. Figure in all those juicy cost-plus contracts, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out we've already broken the trillion dollar mark.

Before you argue the point, I'd also like to point out that the CBO acknowleges that the cost estimates are incomplete.

So yeah, it's cost us hard, and it's going to continue costing us in a major way in money as well as blood as long as we're there.

As far as "winning" goes? I'm still waiting for your explanation of exactly which war we're supposedly winning, and the source that proves your claim.

He didn't say that in your sources. A person who sponsors someone who then commits a terrorist act isn't necessarily directly related to the act itself; it can be tangentially related. In this quote here, Bush could be claiming that Saddam financed or otherwise helped Al Qaida, but that Saddam didn't necessarily know of, plan, or invest any resources that were used in the attack.

In this sense, Bush has not been shown to have lied because a lie (Oxford English Dictionary definiton) is defined as being intentional. We can't prove Bush wasn't just mistaken. You could say why you reasonably believe he is lying, but your evidence in this thread doesn't support that.

What we do know for sure is that he was wrong.

It's possible, though in my opinion unlikely, that our intelligence agencies were merely mistaken. There is no reason I'm aware of to believe that the UN gets our intelligence (that intel specifically in question, at least).

Understand I am not claiming this to be my belief, but Bush could have been manipulated by people such as a group within an agency, or an agency itself (or Israel, or a combination of all these factors) that could benefit from war. Black budget expenditures, a reason for some toys, greater sweeping legal power.

You know what? You're absolutely right. Bush never claimed that Saddam had nukes, or that he was behind 9/11, or that he did anything with Al-Qaeda. He's not an out-and-out liar, he simply spread propaganda that would imply those things, or lead people directly to that conclusion, with the intent of deceiving people into believing it was true.

He may not be a liar, but he is a deceiver, and that's no better. This is what politicians do, and he's in exactly the right kind of company to get away with it and do it better than any other politician does.

In this sense, Bush has not been shown to have lied because a lie (Oxford English Dictionary definiton) is defined as being intentional. We can't prove Bush wasn't just mistaken. You could say why you reasonably believe he is lying, but your evidence in this thread doesn't support that.

The intent is show in the deceit. That shows him to be just as bad as any liar. People died for what he did, people are still dying, and will continue to for a long time. Not just the tens of thousands of Iraqis, but OUR people.

There's no reason to believe they were wrong. Bush, or more appropriately his buddies, took the information they were given and mangled it in such a way as to make it say what they wanted.

Uh, hello. That agency is the fucking Bush Administration. There's no secret conspiracy here, the agenda is blatant and right out in the open. That's the best kind of "conspiracy" - people can see that you are doing it and can't or won'tdo jackshit about it.