WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Bush Iran??

1ct-on!

Take the Bus , BITCH !!
607
0
0
#1
I live in Germany , and last day I readed the news ....

Bush thinks of an Iran war
WTF ??!!!!

Hey I don't know if it's true but ...... when it's true than ?!!! Man I won'T think about it ! I really like to beat the shit otta MR Bush .. In some ways he is like Hitler!
Man i hate this two guys more than anithing else on the world !!!
 

_Kitana_

Angel of Death
4,674
16
0
#2
1ct-on! said:
I live in Germany , and last day I readed the news ....



WTF ??!!!!

Hey I don't know if it's true but ...... when it's true than ?!!! Man I won'T think about it ! I really like to beat the shit otta MR Bush .. In some ways he is like Hitler!
Man i hate this two guys more than anithing else on the world !!!
Hun let me assure you that it is not true.
 

ferengi

Yay fire!
2,089
2
102
#3
1ct-on! said:
I really like to beat the shit otta MR Bush .. In some ways he is like Hitler!
Hate Bush all you want to... but fucking shut up with the Hitler references already, damn. Hitler was a fucking maniac bent on WORLD DOMINATION, who murdered MILLIONS of innocent Jews and other "imperfect races." Hitler was by far the most EVIL man to ever walk the face of this planet. NOBODY ELSE EVEN FUCKING COMES CLOSE, SO GIVE IT A FUCKING REST ALREADY, I'M TIRED OF HEARING THIS SHIT.
I niether like nor dislike Bush, but it's fucking ridiculous to compare him to Hitler.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#5
ferengi74656 said:
it's fucking ridiculous to compare him to Hitler.
Even I can agree with that.

If you truly dislike Bush, I'm certain there are better ways to convey your distaste than likening him to Hitler. How silly.
 

1ct-on!

Take the Bus , BITCH !!
607
0
0
#6
Sup agreed...... My comparison was overdone ... But i couldn't help myself ! Sorry abuot that ..

But he is a bit Lunatic !

So this with the Iran war was just a Newspaper joke ??Can't belive it ! I thought my newspaper was good .... hum .... maybe i should do another Newspaper
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#7
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if that were our next target. I mean it makes perfect sense strategically. That's not to say that I agree with it, or Bush. It just makes sense in the scheme of things.

Others will probably tell you differently though... I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#9
I've been researching this topic as much as I can. Here's an interesting article I came across from the New Yorker.

It's too long to post in it's entirety, so I'll only post excerpts. You can find the entire article here.

THE COMING WARS
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
What the Pentagon can now do in secret.
Issue of 2005-01-24 and 31
Posted 2005-01-17

George W. Bush’s reëlection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term. The C.I.A. will continue to be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as “facilitators” of policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. This process is well under way.

Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the Bush Administration has not reconsidered its basic long-range policy goal in the Middle East: the establishment of democracy throughout the region. Bush’s reëlection is regarded within the Administration as evidence of America’s support for his decision to go to war. It has reaffirmed the position of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership who advocated the invasion, including Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-secretary for Policy. According to a former high-level intelligence official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message. Rumsfeld added that America was committed to staying in Iraq and that there would be no second-guessing.

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

Bush and Cheney may have set the policy, but it is Rumsfeld who has directed its implementation and has absorbed much of the public criticism when things went wrong—whether it was prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib or lack of sufficient armor plating for G.I.s’ vehicles in Iraq. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have called for Rumsfeld’s dismissal, and he is not widely admired inside the military. Nonetheless, his reappointment as Defense Secretary was never in doubt.
For more than a year, France, Germany, Britain, and other countries in the European Union have seen preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon as a race against time—and against the Bush Administration. They have been negotiating with the Iranian leadership to give up its nuclear-weapons ambitions in exchange for economic aid and trade benefits. Iran has agreed to temporarily halt its enrichment programs, which generate fuel for nuclear power plants but also could produce weapons-grade fissile material. (Iran claims that such facilities are legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or N.P.T., to which it is a signator, and that it has no intention of building a bomb.) But the goal of the current round of talks, which began in December in Brussels, is to persuade Tehran to go further, and dismantle its machinery. Iran insists, in return, that it needs to see some concrete benefits from the Europeans—oil-production technology, heavy-industrial equipment, and perhaps even permission to purchase a fleet of Airbuses. (Iran has been denied access to technology and many goods owing to sanctions.)

The Europeans have been urging the Bush Administration to join in these negotiations. The Administration has refused to do so. The civilian leadership in the Pentagon has argued that no diplomatic progress on the Iranian nuclear threat will take place unless there is a credible threat of military action. “The neocons say negotiations are a bad deal,” a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) told me. “And the only thing the Iranians understand is pressure. And that they also need to be whacked.”

The core problem is that Iran has successfully hidden the extent of its nuclear program, and its progress. Many Western intelligence agencies, including those of the United States, believe that Iran is at least three to five years away from a capability to independently produce nuclear warheads—although its work on a missile-delivery system is far more advanced. Iran is also widely believed by Western intelligence agencies and the I.A.E.A. to have serious technical problems with its weapons system, most notably in the production of the hexafluoride gas needed to fabricate nuclear warheads.
The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer. Much of the focus is on the accumulation of intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical, and missile sites, both declared and suspected. The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids. “The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible,” the government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon told me.

Some of the missions involve extraordinary coöperation. For example, the former high-level intelligence official told me that an American commando task force has been set up in South Asia and is now working closely with a group of Pakistani scientists and technicians who had dealt with Iranian counterparts. (In 2003, the I.A.E.A. disclosed that Iran had been secretly receiving nuclear technology from Pakistan for more than a decade, and had withheld that information from inspectors.) The American task force, aided by the information from Pakistan, has been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan in a hunt for underground installations. The task-force members, or their locally recruited agents, secreted remote detection devices—known as sniffers—capable of sampling the atmosphere for radioactive emissions and other evidence of nuclear-enrichment programs.

Getting such evidence is a pressing concern for the Bush Administration. The former high-level intelligence official told me, “They don’t want to make any W.M.D. intelligence mistakes, as in Iraq. The Republicans can’t have two of those. There’s no education in the second kick of a mule.” The official added that the government of Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani President, has won a high price for its coöperation—American assurance that Pakistan will not have to hand over A. Q. Khan, known as the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, to the I.A.E.A. or to any other international authorities for questioning. For two decades, Khan has been linked to a vast consortium of nuclear-black-market activities. Last year, Musharraf professed to be shocked when Khan, in the face of overwhelming evidence, “confessed” to his activities. A few days later, Musharraf pardoned him, and so far he has refused to allow the I.A.E.A. or American intelligence to interview him. Khan is now said to be living under house arrest in a villa in Islamabad. “It’s a deal—a trade-off,” the former high-level intelligence official explained. “‘Tell us what you know about Iran and we will let your A. Q. Khan guys go.’ It’s the neoconservatives’ version of short-term gain at long-term cost. They want to prove that Bush is the anti-terrorism guy who can handle Iran and the nuclear threat, against the long-term goal of eliminating the black market for nuclear proliferation.”

The agreement comes at a time when Musharraf, according to a former high-level Pakistani diplomat, has authorized the expansion of Pakistan’s nuclear-weapons arsenal. “Pakistan still needs parts and supplies, and needs to buy them in the clandestine market,” the former diplomat said. “The U.S. has done nothing to stop it.”

There has also been close, and largely unacknowledged, coöperation with Israel. The government consultant with ties to the Pentagon said that the Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. (After Osirak, Iran situated many of its nuclear sites in remote areas of the east, in an attempt to keep them out of striking range of other countries, especially Israel. Distance no longer lends such protection, however: Israel has acquired three submarines capable of launching cruise missiles and has equipped some of its aircraft with additional fuel tanks, putting Israeli F-16I fighters within the range of most Iranian targets.)

“They believe that about three-quarters of the potential targets can be destroyed from the air, and a quarter are too close to population centers, or buried too deep, to be targeted,” the consultant said. Inevitably, he added, some suspicious sites need to be checked out by American or Israeli commando teams—in on-the-ground surveillance—before being targeted.
Rumsfeld planned and lobbied for more than two years before getting Presidential authority, in a series of findings and executive orders, to use military commandos for covert operations. One of his first steps was bureaucratic: to shift control of an undercover unit, known then as the Gray Fox (it has recently been given a new code name), from the Army to the Special Operations Command (socom), in Tampa. Gray Fox was formally assigned to socom in July, 2002, at the instigation of Rumsfeld’s office, which meant that the undercover unit would have a single commander for administration and operational deployment. Then, last fall, Rumsfeld’s ability to deploy the commandos expanded. According to a Pentagon consultant, an Execute Order on the Global War on Terrorism (referred to throughout the government as gwot) was issued at Rumsfeld’s direction. The order specifically authorized the military “to find and finish” terrorist targets, the consultant said. It included a target list that cited Al Qaeda network members, Al Qaeda senior leadership, and other high-value targets. The consultant said that the order had been cleared throughout the national-security bureaucracy in Washington.

In late November, 2004, the Times reported that Bush had set up an interagency group to study whether it “would best serve the nation” to give the Pentagon complete control over the C.I.A.’s own élite paramilitary unit, which has operated covertly in trouble spots around the world for decades. The panel’s conclusions, due in February, are foregone, in the view of many former C.I.A. officers. “It seems like it’s going to happen,” Howard Hart, who was chief of the C.I.A.’s Paramilitary Operations Division before retiring in 1991, told me.

There was other evidence of Pentagon encroachment. Two former C.I.A. clandestine officers, Vince Cannistraro and Philip Giraldi, who publish Intelligence Brief, a newsletter for their business clients, reported last month on the existence of a broad counter-terrorism Presidential finding that permitted the Pentagon “to operate unilaterally in a number of countries where there is a perception of a clear and evident terrorist threat. . . . A number of the countries are friendly to the U.S. and are major trading partners. Most have been cooperating in the war on terrorism.” The two former officers listed some of the countries—Algeria, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and Malaysia. (I was subsequently told by the former high-level intelligence official that Tunisia is also on the list.)
 

Woodreaux

Original Dicksman
2,429
0
0
#10
DanGeo23 said:
hey 1ct.... you runnin around Germany with lil American flags?
Yeah, 1ct-on, some assgoblin is running Berlin planting American flags in piles of Hundescheiße. Do you know anything about that?
 

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#11
I haven´t heard Bush saying USA attacking Iran. He just said that "Israel might do something to the irani problem." He also gave a timeline, this year..
Without much brainwork, that can be seen USA threatening Iran. After all israel is merely a handpuppet..
 

1ct-on!

Take the Bus , BITCH !!
607
0
0
#12
Woodreaux said:
Yeah, 1ct-on, some assgoblin is running Berlin planting American flags in piles of Hundescheiße. Do you know anything about that?

Sup man !! Heyy I know him well ... is see that crazy dude when i look in the mirror ;) ....
well obyusly that was a joke ....

I don't live in Berlin , i live in Baden-Württemberg so thats the other side , but this dude wich is doing this roxs.......

Thats my opposition .... hum he better had done this with a pikture of Mr Bush not with your flag i thing ... I like the Americans , but i hate the gouverment , geee , :confused:
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#14
http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050126-iran-game.htm

The U.S. Air Force is playing a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Iran's ayatollahs, flying American combat aircraft into Iranian airspace in an attempt to lure Tehran into turning on air defense radars, thus allowing U.S. pilots to grid the system for use in future targeting data, administration officials said.

"We have to know which targets to attack and how to attack them," said one, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The flights, which have been going on for weeks, are being launched from sites in Afghanistan and Iraq and are part of Bush administration attempts collect badly needed intelligence on Iran's possible nuclear weapons development sites, these sources said, speaking on condition of strict anonymity.

"These Iranian air defense positions are not just being observed, they're being 'templated,'" an administration official said, explaining that the flights are part of a U.S. effort to develop "an electronic order of battle for Iran" in case of actual conflict.

However, a Pentagon spokesman told UPI he was unaware of any such actions.
:thumbsdn:
 

Captain 151

Seeped in a dry Merlot
4,261
4
0
#15
Personally, after Iraq, I saw Sudan as our next target. Then, about a month and a half ago, a small news blurb came across the scroll bar at the bottom of CNN mentioning something about Sudan and yelled to myself, "Aha! I was right!"

I've heard nothing about it since then.
 

MaxPower

You're my number two
Staff
16,909
3,366
487
#16
1ct-on said:
I like the Americans , but i hate the gouverment , geee , :confused:
DanGeo23 said:
hey... thats odd... I like Germans... but not their govt...
:rolleyes: If you two start wyth "I'm rubber. You're glue"; I'm gonna shit myself. :p
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#18
1ct-on! said:
I live in Germany , and last day I readed the news ....



WTF ??!!!!

Hey I don't know if it's true but ...... when it's true than ?!!! Man I won'T think about it ! I really like to beat the shit otta MR Bush .. In some ways he is like Hitler!
Man i hate this two guys more than anithing else on the world !!!
It absolutely IS true, Hun.

Read The Price of Loyalty by Paul O'Neill, it details meeting where they all sat around the Oval Office and discussed Iran as one of the targets, they just "picked" Afghanastan first...
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#19
Paul O...
a person that got fired.... turned against his former boss.. to make a shitload of money.... no way...
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#20
DanGeo23 said:
Paul O...
a person that got fired.... turned against his former boss.. to make a shitload of money.... no way...
As usual, you come to us from a place of ignorance. Let me guess? You didn't read the book.

1) He didn't "get fired", he left when he realized the Bush Administration didn't give a shit about making anything better for anyone except themselves. And he didn't lie about it like most of them do and say "I want to spend more time with my family".

2) He didn't turn on his boss, he told the truth.

3) He was already very rich, didn't need the money.