Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If Obama attacks Iran...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:48 PM
Original message
Poll question: If Obama attacks Iran...
Published on 14 Mar 2010

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/final-des...

Hundreds of powerful US bunker-buster bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 Blu bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.

Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Irans controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons.

Although Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.

The Sunday Herald reported in 2007 that stealth bomber hangers on the island were being equipped to take bunker-buster bombs.

more...

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. If we don't
Israel will, and we'll still be blamed for it, anyway. Why not send in pros who can do the job right the first time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LakeSamish706 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Oh thats such a great idea, getting into a 3rd. war at this time... WTF n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Nobody said anything about a war
When Israel destroyed Saddam's nuclear stuff a couple of decades ago, it didn't automatically create a war. I'm just talking about the destruction of the other guy's toys, without having to kick his ass, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LakeSamish706 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. You think that Iran is just going to sit there while this goes down? I don't be thinking so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. If we take away their nukes
what other options do they have? Sponsoring terrorism?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LakeSamish706 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. And you think that China and Russia are just going to sit by while this goes down as well? I think
this would be a one way ticket to the next world war and probably total destruction of this earth and all her people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #24
38. I can see China and Russia
protesting their asses off at the UN, but are they really going to do something serious over the mere destruction of Iranian nukes, something that Israel is going to have to attempt, anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. China would have no choice but to step in

Oil prices and availability would be in crisis and China runs on oil.

They will do what they have to in order to protect their interests.

This has been already anticipated by the experts.


You appear to have a limited knowledge of this subject. A limitation which makes it impossible to reason with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #43
56. Part of the strategy would be replacing the Iranian oil
with oil from Sunni states. I'm sure the Saudis and the Iraqis would be able to fill the void.

I'm sorry you feel you can't reason with me. There are only a few possible outcomes:

Israel attacks the Iranian facilities, and does an imperfect job, possibly.

The US does the job fully, and minimizes the damage.

The Iranians really never get the hang of developing something the West was able to invent some sixty-five years ago, and they just keep shaking fists at Israel helplessly.

Peace will guide the planet, and love will steer the stars.

Which outcome do you see most possible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #56
61. My God you are dense
Edited on Mon Mar-15-10 06:43 PM by Tempest
You really believe Iranian oil can be replaced without a major disruption?

Aren't you aware OPEC is already pumping at near capacity thanks in large part to China and Indonesia's economic growth?

Where exactly would all this excess oil come from?

And you fail to realize Iran would mine the Straits of Hormuz and disrupt 2/3rds of the world's oil shipments.


Not only that, but you are ignorant of the Pentagon's war case scenarios which show an attack on Iran's facility will only put them back two or three years and would double their efforts to get a nuclear weapon. It would also kill the reform movement in Iran, allowing the mullahs to concentrate power.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. As I've said
it is the least disruptive of a set of really bad possible outcomes.

If we do zero, eventually Israel will decide that its very existence is threatened, and will do something about it. If we fail to act, then we are left hoping that Israel did enough to finish the job.

No President would want to deal with the outcome if they didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. Either would be distruptive

But you don't appear to concern yourself with any of the outcomes.

Go back to supporting whichever defense company you're a service guy to and stay away from geo-political discussions. You're not equipped for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. Actually
I work for a utility company, not a defense contractor.

Look, you can dislike me and my positions all you want, but I'm not the guy who had an input in moving bunker busters to Diego Garcia. I'm just trying to get into the heads of the people who did, and talk about it here.

You may think that the Israelis and the Iranians are going to eventually sit around in a circle and hold hands, but I suspect there's going to be some fighting before that happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angleae Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #43
134. China has virtually no capability to step in.
Their military is not a projective force. Unless they start using nukes, they'll be simply swatted away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #22
32. Iran doesn't have nukes

They don't have the ability to create nuclear weapons material yet.


And yes, Iran has the power to unleash hell in the Middle East through their terrorist surrogates.

I guess you missed the political science class where Iran is a terrorist sponsor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #32
42. While they may not yet
it's only a matter of time. Israel isn't going to give them that time.

My comment about Iran supporting terror was meant to be sarcastic. They're already doing it, as much as they possibly can right now. They have no way to escalate it any further than they're already doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. You are living in a dream world
Edited on Mon Mar-15-10 06:28 PM by Tempest
They're already doing it, as much as they possibly can right now.

That is so wrong on so many levels.

Iran is, and has been, laying low on the terrorism front for years. They could very easily step up the support without batting an eye.


Read up on what the military experts are saying about an attack on Iran as many of us have done and maybe you'll have something to offer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. Have you heard of Hezbollah and Hamas?
The Iranians couldn't get a toehold here, with the post 9/11 security.

Perhaps you have different experts you'd care to direct me to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. You apparently are ignorant of recent history

Thanks to the 2006 Israel attack on Lebanon, Hezbollah took control militarily and politically in Lebanon.

I suppose you think that's not getting a toehold.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. That's a toehold in Lebanon
not in the US. The Israel of 1967 wouldn't have stood for this, the present day Israel seems to be accommodating towards it. That might lead someone to believe that they'd do an imperfect job of wiping out Iranian bomb factories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. That's a toehold next to Israel

You are obviously not well versed in the Middle East or in the probably outcomes of an attack on Iran, nor do you appear to want to learn anything about it.


This has been a big waste of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. Iraq was already at war with Iran

Iraq was at war with Iran in 1981 when Israel attacked the Osiraq facility.

Saddam didn't have the ability to wage a two front war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #28
47. As soon as we bug out of Iraq
The Shia and the Sunni will go back to fighting each other. Hopefully, we can get out of the way by the time the Iranian nuke facilities will be taken out, either efficiently by us, or partially by Israel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. We won't be "bugging out of Iraq"

You don't even know the plans for Iraq, do you?

Just like you don't know the Pentagon's scenarios for an aftermath of an attack.

Say hi to Chabraja next time you pass him in the hall.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #52
60. At some point, we will leave
and it will probably resemble Saigon, 1975 in many ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #60
65. Saigon in 1975?

Saigon in 1975 fell to the communists, you idiot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Yes, and Iraq will fall to Sunni-Shiite violence
I would sincerely hope that's after we've gotten our troops out of the way, but I suspect that some will die as we pull out in the chaos. Look at how many bombings there are in Iraq, still, they just can't wait to go after each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. We won't be leaving Iraq. Period.

It's a dream you had, nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #12
106. I get it.
One of those non-wars, in which non-bombs are dropped on non-people and non-places.

Nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #106
127. If you want the example of a non-war
look up Yugoslavia, where we sent in no ground troops, but with aerial bombardment, accomplished a few of our goals. Either Israel or the US can do that by taking out Iran's nuclear bomb-making capacity. Israel already did that with Iraq a couple of decades ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-10 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #127
133. Please don't try to sell me a bloodless war of aggression...
...particularly when I talked in real time to some of our nonexistent ground troops in former Yugoslavia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #12
115. No "war," just the usual illegal aggression
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Good idea, then let's attack France.
Edited on Mon Mar-15-10 05:57 PM by arcadian
Actually I could make the argument that every nation on Earth is a threat to US security. Why not attack everybody?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Good point! But don't limit it to the Earth: attack the moon!
What has the moon done for use lately?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
117. And Mars, just in case there really are Martians.
And Mars was the God of War, so they're asking for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. The French are not, and have never been
a threat to world peace. The Iranians are eventually going to nuke Israel if they get the chance, and the Israelis will never let that happen. There will be only one chance to eliminate Iranian nuclear bomb technology, and if the Israelis screw it up, we'll be downwind of the fallout that will result.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. Ya ever heard of Napoleon Bonaparte?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Ok, strike "never"
and replace it with "not recently". My mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #30
41. What about when France di support our current adventurism in Iraq?
Edited on Mon Mar-15-10 06:25 PM by arcadian
Wasn't that a threat to every single US service member in the region? I say NUKE THEM!!! You're with me aren't ya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
63. You're talking nonsense
and that's even if I can figure out what you were trying to spell. France is not a part of anything seriously military, their only naval victory since WWII was against a Greenpeace ship.

Nobody really gives a crap about whether they're for you or against you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
34. Iran Will Eventually Nuke Israel?
And there's a legitimate source for this? Not rhetoric...we got tons of that prior to the Iraq fiasco. Problem with launching a nuke at Israel is they will surely do the same in return and thensome...so Ahmajeenjad or Khameni or whomever holds their "football" would have to consider that several of his cities will fry the moment the missile shows on an Israeli radar. Next, there's this simple thing called "blow back". Drop a bomb on Tel Aviv and the radiation and fall out could easily travel into Lebanon or Syria or Jordan and doing massive destruction there.

I'm not crazy about Iran having any nuclear capabilities, but building is one thing, possessing is another, using is a whole different animal altogether. Iran is looking at foreign troops on their east and west as well as its own precarious position in the Arab world (Sunnis & Shiites don't play nice together) and there's more card playing here than much more. When Saddam Hussein was taken down his people admitted that the WMD game was bluster...rhetoric to keep critics and enemies on the defensive. The "machismo" of the leaders of that culture is so deep that they will do down in flames to show "strength".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #34
44. "its own precarious position in the Arab world "
Iran isn't even in the Arab world. Persians are a distinct ethnicity, not Arabs. They are in the Muslim world, which is where the Sunni/Shi'ite thing comes into play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #34
70. While I think that it would eventually happen
all that needs to occur is that Israel's leadership will believe it to be immanent at some point. While that leadership is headed by Netanyahu, I believe it to be more likely this will occur sooner rather than later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-10 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
131. I suspect the various nations that fought Napoleon would
disagree with you on a part of that statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. "pros who can do the job right..."
So, no private contractors, then? Seriously, though, Obama will have my support for as long as he is President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. No questions asked, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. *sigh* I believe that if the US were to attack Iran...
that it would mean that reasons to do so would have been fully discussed by the aforementioned "pros". I'm not any kind of blind follower, but the government of Iran has been begging for some kind of attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. That's right
If it happened, it would be the least bad of a number of really lousy options. That's been the guiding principle for HCR, why wouldn't it be applied to military strategy, too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. Are you chanting USA while drinking a beer?
at this moment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #27
81. The Olympics were over two weeks ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. And I was having a beer and chanting "Canada"!
Like I have said in other places on this thread, you may dislike me personally, and especially dislike my ideas, but if this story is real, then what I've been writing is what is on the minds of the people who made the decision to ship the bunker busters to Diego Garcia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. If it comes to that, I'd prefer to attack Israel.
But I won't support attacking anybody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. Oh, you really are dreaming!
While Jewish people are only a small fraction of this country, for some strange reason, the fundies who are a large fraction of this country would be just as pissed off at any US president who did this.

There are no circumstances whatsoever that the US will forsake Israel, whether that's the right or the wrong thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #8
103. You'd attack Israel?
That says a lot and none of it good. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #103
123. Don't be surprised.
He is the same poster who gave us this lovely post:

damntexdem (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-15-10 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. The State of Israel should be destroyed.
I had long been for a two-state solution; but it has become clear that the State of Israel will never settle for anything short of stealing all of Palestine.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

You have to at least give him some kudos for saying what so many more here are actually thinking but disguise in their posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. yes, because the Bush Doctrine
worked out so well the first time around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. You could make the case
that the Obama Doctrine is the Bush Doctrine, with a slightly different face on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
57. Explain in detail your reasoning

That the Obama Doctrine is the Bush Doctrine.

Because in a normal person's view, that's just not the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #57
74. As I see it
#1: We're still in Iraq, so far. According to one of my friendly adversaries on this thread, we will always be there.

#2: We are stepping up the war in Afghanistan. We may be on the verge of doing so in Pakistan.

#3: We are voicing strong opposition to what's going on in Iran. And clearly, we're willing to ship bunker busters to Diego Garcia, if only to make a point.

No, it may not look exactly like the way Bush did things, but the outcomes may just be the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #74
114. The error in thought and the pure willingness to ignore the facts as expressed
in points one and two in your post is why I feel as sorry for you as I do.

It's a pity, really. You are so very earnest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #114
125. Do you deny my points?
Are we not still in Iraq? I personally think we'll be bugging out, Saigon-style in a short time, but are we not still there now?

Are we not accelerating the war in Afghanistan?

And you feel sorry for me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #125
128. Your parsing of the topics mentioned are
Immature, transparent and, really not worth discussing except to point out your immature, transparent and not really worth discussing parsing of those topics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
29. Israel fights a war and they're done in a week.
How long our "pros" been in Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. You're thinking 1967 here
Israel hasn't been able to do that in a long time, if they still had that kind of mentality, they'd have wiped Gaza off the map a few years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #40
76. I agree that oil prices will rise
but I think that's going to happen even if things stay peaceful. Any serious recovery is going to bring $5-6 a gallon gasoline prices, if we ever get anywhere near the jobless rate we had in the middle of the last decade.

I feel Iran is already doing whatever it can to destabilize the world, knocking out its nukes is not going to change that. As for hell on earth for our troops, they've already got plenty of that. I advocate getting them out of the way while the destabilization we've unleashed works its way out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
86. ...cause $700+ billion a year isn't enough for the MIC. For fucks sake!
Edited on Mon Mar-15-10 08:05 PM by L0oniX
I'll bet that the DU chicken hawks and military cheer leaders love the idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
88. Spectacular logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. 'for a possible attack on Iran' speculation posing as news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. True dat. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. Stupid question because Obama isn't going to attack Iran
If you read down a few more paragraphs it says that this story isn't even "confirmed"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. At least there are 6 TRUE BELIEVERS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
54. Feel free to bookmark this thread and call me out when Obama attacks Iran
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
13. ANY Democrat who buys into another FUCKING NAZI PNAC WAR
Can go fuck themselves with a chain saw.

The United States has not been involved in ONE legitimate war since August 1945.

It is time for the American people to speak with one voice, and say NO to any more of this imperialistic bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. ANY DUer who buys into this bullshit that Obama will attack Iran...
Edited on Mon Mar-15-10 06:09 PM by Drunken Irishman
Needs to get their heads checked.

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
35. I don't know WHAT to believe about Obama anymore
I never believed he would sign an insurance abling bill without a public option, for example. But apparently he's going to do so.

I also never thought I would hear him give a speech using the Bush Crime Family's "9/11 terra terra terra" bullshit talking points, as an excuse to escalate the war in Afghanistan, because I KNOW the man is too goddamn smart to actually BELIEVE the fucking lies told to us about that invasion. Yet he did that too.

So now you want me to believe he would NEVER attack Iran? Well I hope not, but I damn sure wouldn't put any money down in Vegas on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #35
94. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #35
108. Afghanistan in one thing, he has some support on that and campaigned on escalation there. Iran?
No support from not just the base but most Dems. He wouldn't win another term. If he wants to go after Iran that way, so be it. But it would end any chance of his getting reelected again. We are not like Repubs in that respect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. You know what makes wars legitimate?
Winning them. Fully and decisively.

And we haven't had the will to do that since August 1945. I believe there were some really big bombs used that month, as I faintly recall...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. You have a warped moral compass

According to you Bush's Iraq war would be considered legitimate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #33
77. We haven't won it
and we won't.

The victors always get to write the history books, when there is no clear victor, there are at least two sets of histories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
39. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. Lockheed Martin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. General Dynamics

Or Northrup Grumman or Boeing.

You can bet it's one of the big four.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #48
80. Wrong-o
But thanks for playing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #39
78. Nope
It's for a utility company, but thanks for the personal insults.

Maybe you think that this is all going to go away by itself, but I don't believe so. Either Israel does the job, possibly ineffectively, or the US does it, with a much greater chance of success.

I can tell you which way the people moving bunker busters to Diego Garcia have decided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #26
97. Are you suggesting we should've nuked Vietnam...?
Edited on Mon Mar-15-10 11:28 PM by Marr
I must be misinterpreting your comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #97
101. If we had won Vietnam decisively
it would be in the history books as a 'just' war. If the North had lost the Civil War to the South, it would have been written up as a mistake to have gotten involved.

The person I was responding to was talking about wars being legitimate, and my response is that only after a war has been fully and decisively won, the history writers for the winners get to declare it legitimate.

That's pretty much happened with the westward expansion of European colonies across the North American continent, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #26
124. Translation : we haven't turned any countries into parking lots since 1945!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #124
126. Well, we didn't turn either Germany or Japan into one
but we did flatten significant proportions of them. Enough to turn two of the most warlike countries in the history of the world into places that sixty years later find war unthinkable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
73. I agree completely, though I think you were a bit understated. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #13
104. Korea was very legitimate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
17. Seems a tad over the top -
They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran, said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours, he added.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WheelWalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
31. I try to live in the present n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
37. You really need two polls here
First the poll today, where everyone will claim they're against it.

Then a poll after the fact should an attack happen. Then everyone will explain to us why it was the most awesome idea ever.

You know, like how everyone said "Public Option or bust!" last summer.

Then there's today . . .

The rightness or wrongness in these things is highly situational. President Obama's political image being the situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
49. Other: never gonna happen. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LakeSamish706 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
50. I would say that this poll pretty much sums up how DU feels about attacking Iran.
Needless to say we need to get the hell out of the military struggles that we are in now, not move to new ones. I still and will always believe that the Administration that got us into these wars should be held accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
55. No vote / unrec.
How has Obama indicated any intention of attacking Iran? (I'm asking for a quote and a link, otherwise, you're just making shit up).

/I feel dirty just for kicking this stupid thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #55
118. Zounds! I had almost forgotten to unrec!
24-hour window still not over. Whew.

(Feels likewise dirty)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
58. I would hope he would lose all support
if he started a war with Iran. But I'm sure there would still be people who would cheer lead this war like they do everything else.

The dissenters would be labeled as traitors and so on you know the drill.

But I don't see it happening.

No way Obama could be that dumb, I refuse to even think it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geek_Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
62. Any pre-emptive attack on Iran or any other country I will March against this administration
and through my money, time and vote to who ever the non war mongering candidate is, regardless of political party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taterguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #62
68. You'll be marching within walking distance of your house I presume?
We fight oil wars because people like to consume oil.

Funny how so many forget this simple concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #68
75. Bicycling distance, I'm guessing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taterguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #75
85. Ever try to carry a sign on a bicycle?
That's just asking for trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #85
91. The plastic-sack signs are easy to carry on a bike.
The metal frames for them require a rack & few tie-downs. Still, it's easier to carry than the old cardboard signs with the wood stakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #62
83. And if he nukes Mexico, I'll walk to Washington and sit outside the White House in protest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
79. So, in 2012, we'll all vote for Palin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
84. Other:
...I'll change my sig line to read "arcadian is a geopolitical genius" for a full year. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #84
92. don't shoot the messenger
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
87. What do you take him for? He's not going to attack Iran & unleash Armageddon in the Middle East...
:wtf:

Hekate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
89. The Dems tranformation into repugs will be complete at that point
we're about 80% there as it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurks Often Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
90. Very Skeptical of the story
I'm skeptical of this story for the following reasons:
1. If we were to attack Iran's nuclear facilities (for the sake of argument, presume they do exist), we would use B-2 bombers and they would come directly from the US, probably Whiteman Air Force Base.
2. The BLU-110 is a 1000lb bomb capable of penetrating only 6 feet of reinforced concrete, probably not sufficient to get deep enough for Iran's underground facilities; The BLU-117 is a 2000lb capable of penetrating only 11 feet of reinforced concrete and so would have the much the same limitations. It is likely that Iran's facilities are protected by at least and likely more then 20ft of steel reinforced concrete. Steel reinforced concrete is relatively cheap and the Iranians are not going to jeopardize years of work and millions or billions of dollars by skimping on steel reinforced concrete.
3. The weight of bombs in the article are commonly used in Afghanistan and many of the bombers being used in Afghanistan are flying out of Diego Garcia.
4. Not even the US can destroy 10,000 targets in a few hours, a wide scale air attack of Iran would take days or weeks, because the first several days would be used to destroy Iran's military airfields and their surface to air missiles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-10 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #90
132. It is clear BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
93. I cannot believe anyone would support this on DU
WTF???? keyboard warriors in mommys basement?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #93
99. I believe it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #93
116. It's absolutely terrifying.
I haven't been so concerned since some DUers supported Obama drilling to the center of the earth and releasing the mole men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #93
121. There's a small group that diligently name-calls anyone who sources an article about it
... granted this was brought up frequently during Bush/Cheney (PNAC), often from Sy Hersh, and when it never transpired it quickly became further name-calling fodder for those dedicated to hating 'conspiracy theorists.'

Dunno if it's that same group who are likewise voting 'stand w/Obama if the US attacks' or not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
95. Other:
He's already lost my support. The health care debacle. His war on public education, my profession. His bailouts. His escalation of the unnecessary war on terror.

If he decided to take us to war on yet another front, I'd be calling for his impeachment. Or, at the least, his defeat by an authentic Democrat in 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
96. BLU is an acronym for Bomb Live Unit. Doesn't mean it's a bunker buster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Regret My New Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
98. I was hoping these 'stories' would go away once Bush was out of office...
How many times have we've heard "Iran to be attacked by mid-March/April/June/July/Etc..."?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
100. It would depend on the circumstances, of course
While keeping in mind that Obama is nearly a Clinton-Republican and has appointed Republicans, and acted like a Republican. Therefore, I don't trust him one bit. Whatever Kucinich says I'd look at as the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_bryanto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
102. Iran has a history of reckless behavior
They aren't actually innocent victims - or to be more precise - the leaders of Iran are not exactly innocent victims (the people are unfortunately). It is conceivable that the leaders of Iran could do something or be part of something that would require a response. Should this happen, and assuming it's not phonied up, I would probably support Obama. Bear in mind I still believe 9/11 to be a terrorist act by members of al-Qaeda, so my standards of proof might not jibe with yours.

In the absence of that, any military invasion of Iraq would be unsupportable.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #102
105. Wow, so you would support a full scale war?
Edited on Tue Mar-16-10 09:05 AM by quinnox
If there was some good intel that Iran was being hostile to the United States in plans? Or are you just talking about limited 'surgical' strikes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_bryanto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #105
109. I am talking about something along the lines of 9/11
Not plans. They would have to take actual aggressive action towards the United States or towards their neighbors. I'm just saying that's not beyond the realms of reasonable possibility that they would do something like that.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #109
122. Speaking of which, I doubt anyone here can forget this:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
107. Obama would lose my support and I am pretty supportive of him right now.
It would be the most idiotic idea ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
110. Really? We're back to the "He's going to attack Iran" meme?
If I had a nickle for every DU post from 2003 on about how Bush was going to Attack Iran OMG! I'd have enough nickles to fill a sock so I could beat the crap out of people who make "attacking Iran" posts based on speculative or just plain faulty information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
111. It'll never happen...
Edited on Tue Mar-16-10 10:18 AM by SidDithers
search back into the archives for the "Bush is going to attack Iran" posts, and you'll see the same language as in this article.

Sid

Edit: and Unrec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #111
112. I think they're going for law of averages or something
You know, if we make a few threads a week about how the U.S. is about to launch a pre-emtive strike on Iran, sooner or later, someone will get it right (and then they'll promptly ignore the hundreds of times they were wrong and gloat that they "told us so.")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #112
113. Yup. I usually ask for a time frame to go with these predictions...
an open-ended prediction is never wrong, it just hasn't happened yet.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #112
120. +1
Bush was attacking Iran and opening the FEMA camps for all liberals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Regret My New Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #111
119. I agree... Although, I wonder what stance the repubs would take if Obama did do it...
I wish we could fake it just to see what they would say. :P
(I'm easily amused)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
129. Bush was supposed to attack Iran 5 years ago
suddenly Obama is going to attack Iran and alienate most of his supporters? :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
130. What if he shoots down the moon and it's made of green cheese?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 26th 2014, 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC