Air America just said "Bush wants PROOF Iran is ramping down nukes"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Here we go again, folks.

CONFIRMATIONS of nukes that don't exist.

Weapons inspectors that will FIND NO WEAPONS.

"Faulty Intelligence" that will get Bush's dick hard enough to kill another 1,000 American men and women, wound another 25,000 or so, and maybe kill 100,000,000+ Iranians...but hey, fuck 'em...they hate us for our freedom and freedom is on the march...right?

And like Bush said right after the election: "America has spoken."

And fuck EVERY American who voted for this MADMAN.

[Mojambo]

1. Proof??

I thought he went with "gut instinct" on matters of grave foreign policy?

[L84TEA]

2. yeah... Silly Goose...

We don't use things like... FACTS to take over a country!!!

:silly:

[fugue]

3. It is impossible to prove a negative

This is basic logic. Only a positive can be proven. A negative can never been proven because an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Unfortunately, Americans have been so poorly trained in logical thinking that they fall for this again and again.

Here's to the memory of Hithergreen Middle School, Centerville, Ohio: you were run by a bunch of enlightened sixties liberals who knew it was important to teach me to recognize propaganda techniques and to use logic.

[Vickers]

4. Ahhh, it's the old "when did you stop beating your wife" trick, eh?

Very clever, very clever indeed. :eyes:

[DuaneBidoux]

5. Pardon my conclusion: Wouldn't it be reasonable in view of recent.

history to say the burden has shifted onto Bush to Prove that they haven't ramped down?

The really shitty part is that they probably really are building full speed ahead with nukes now...who wouldn't? Bush taught them well, if you don't want to risk invasion get nukes.

[villagechild]

6. link

source?

[DuaneBidoux]

11. No link

I'm just voicing an opinion, that when one has been proved wrong once the burden of proof would seem to INCREASE for one proved wrong. But hey, if the only neighbors not getting attacked are the ones who have the guns and I don't want to get attacked? Well, I'll get a gun. Same logic with nukes. Ergo my conclusion that Bush's lesson has been to all countries not wishing to be attacked, get a nuke.

[arewenotdemo]

7. yeah, that makes sense to a degree

but it won't stop them from taking any suspected or desirable facilities out, Israeli-style.

Then the invasion could occur. Still, if they insanely try that it won't be any kind of cakewalk.

Though most Muricans apparently wanted four more years of this genocidal insanity, when the coffins start shipping non-stop from Iraq AND Iran I would think public support would really start to falter.

Then again, I could be wrong. We are, after all, a CHRISTIAN nation.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

8. Well, then I want PROOF that Bush..

..didn't cheat to win the 2004 election!

[wiggs]

9. Why not?

There's nothing to stop the WH from doing whatever they want at this point in time. There are no obstacles here in the US, thanks to decades of covert planning and power grabbing. Perhaps in a few years, the EU and China will be in a position to influence our foreign policy. But not yet. And maybe not even ever, if we follow the PNAC playbook to its conclusion.

Sometimes I think these guys want to increase conflict over there. When you think about it, almost every policy or act has had the effect of creating more opposition and anger. Taking away local newspapers, Abu Ghraib, using Kurds in Fallujah, installing a CIA operative as head of government, no rebuilding, allowing looting, allowing Iraqi guns and soldiers to melt into the countryside during invasion, killing insurgents, etc etc. What has the US done to keep a lid on things? Kill more people? That has exactly the opposite effect, and they MUST know this by now.

So even if we think the case for taking action in Iran is weak, irresponsible, false, and dangerous we should remember that this administration may be looking for trouble. They may be wanting this fight on the world stage while we are still the only superpower. The EU is growing in strength daily. China is fast becoming a giant of a nation in every respect. We won't be the strongest forever. Are they looking to upset the apple cart now, to gain control of this key region, to stifle the Muslim countries in general, while we have a chance against the rest of the world? It very well could be that China and EU would be strong enough so that in five years, they could have been telling us what we can and can't do in the region. PNAC will not have tolerate that.

Iraq was not the end game, IMO.

One of the big worries among people familiar with the region was that removing Hussein would allow a Shiite theocracy to bloom in Iraq, perhaps leading to a powerful, difficult-to-control alliance with Shiite Iran. Well, while we thought the WH was reckless in this regard, perhaps they were thinking that was is not really a concern because Iran is next.

[blondeatlast]

10. Good God. Can we appeal to the UN for help somehow?

I'm not joking, either.