US to declare war on Syria and Iran?

[JennyMominRI]

Not going to go there....... I support our country and our military 100%...

I am Military and so do I...I just believe that *support* means something else

 

[Fitswimmer]

I'm sure that a case can be made that we will go there next, but I'm waiting to see how it all shakes out with Congress. They've come out very strongly against the "surge", so it's likely that there will be money issues. It's not politically expedient for them to cut off funding, but they could restrict funding for future expansion and be pretty safe, since the country is not behind the President right now.

 

[LuvDuke]

I'd prefer both sides.... If that was possible. But, there always seems to be the same ones starting these threads to let us all know what we are missing... As, if we don't read or watch the news.

I'm not choosing sides - My side for my country, our military, and our president!!!

I'm just getting so tired of seeing the same threads starting and always complaining about something that no one who who reads this can do anything about.....

That is the side I am saying give it a rest to.... We get it already!!!!!!!!

Who can't do anything about it? The American people did something about "it" on November 7, 2006. Unfortunately, the message didn't get through to Bush.

 

[TheDoctor]

Again, if you are calling it WWIII, one big war, there is no question about when it began. September 11, 2001.

Again you are totally wrong here. Iraq had nothing to do September 11. The Senate Intelligence Committee has looked at all of the facts and the war in Iraq is in no way related to or based on the attacks on Sept. 11. If you want a starting date for this war, look at the invasion of Iraq but to say that the war in Iraq was due to Sept. 11 is simply dumb.

 

[Cool-Beans]

Again you are totally wrong here. Iraq had nothing to do September 11. The Senate Intelligence Committee has looked at all of the facts and the war in Iraq is in no way related to or based on the attacks on Sept. 11. If you want a starting date for this war, look at the invasion of Iraq but to say that the war in Iraq was due to Sept. 11 is simply dumb.

And for the second time, IF you considered it ONE big war, as Lake Ariel suggests - WWIII - it began on September 11.

If you don't, you don't.

 

[TheDoctor]

This article lists a number of steps taken by bush and his allies to increase the focus on Iran and to help take the focus off Iraq. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/presidents-intentions-towards-iran.html

Iraq continues to receive the overwhelming bulk of attention in the media and among political analysts. But the fate of Iraq, tragically, is all but sealed -- the President will send more troops and order them to be increasingly brutal and indiscriminate, and they will stay through at least the end of his presidency. That is just a fact. The far more attention-demanding issue now is what the President's intentions are with regard to Iran.

As Think Progress notes, the White House took multiple steps yesterday to elevate dramatically the threat rhetoric against Iran. Bush included what The New York Times described as “some of his sharpest words of warning to Iran” yet. But those words could really be described more accurately not as “threats” but as a declaration of war.

He accused the Iranian government of “providing material support for attacks on American troops” and vowed to “seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.” But those networks are located in Iran, which means that search and destroy missions on such networks would necessarily include some incursion into Iranian territory, whether by air or ground.

The article lists a number of other steps or actions that show that bush is trying to stir up or justify a war against Iran. I believe that such efforts are in large part design to take attention away from the failed war in Iraq.

 

[TheDoctor]

And for the second time, IF you considered it ONE big war, as Lake Ariel suggests - WWIII - it began on September 11.

If you don't, you don't.

I believe in FACTS. You evidently do not understand or believe in the facts. bush and the GOP got by for a long time confusing the war in Iraq with Sept. 11. Luckily the facts are clear and a majority of the American people are clear that Iraq is not related to Sept. 11 and that bush lied to get the US into a war with Iraq. All you are doing is repeating the same silly talking points that bush used to link the war in Iraq with Sept 11. Those talking points have been proven false.

 

[Cool-Beans]

I believe in FACTS. You evidently do not understand or believe in the facts. bush and the GOP got by for a long time confusing the war in Iraq with Sept. 11. Luckily the facts are clear and a majority of the American people are clear that Iraq is not related to Sept. 11 and that bush lied to get the US into a war with Iraq. All you are doing is repeating the same silly talking points that bush used to link the war in Iraq with Sept 11. Those talking points have been proven false.

So, if you consider the whole thing ONE big war, it began with us going to Iraq?

The WTC stuff and Afghanistan just won't get counted?

 

[Charade]

Wrong. Neither Iraq nor Iran was involved in the attack on Sept. 11. The war in Iraq and now the attacks on Iran are going to make or have made the area less secure and more dangerous. I can provide links and nice quotes from the Senate Intelligence Committee report that establishes that there were no links between Saddam/Iraq and Sept. 11 or Al Qaeda if you want.

Wrong!

She's talking about the global war on terrorism and not specifically the war in Iraq. Geez you're like a broken record.

 

[basas]

I believe in FACTS. You evidently do not understand or believe in the facts. bush and the GOP got by for a long time confusing the war in Iraq with Sept. 11. Luckily the facts are clear and a majority of the American people are clear that Iraq is not related to Sept. 11 and that bush lied to get the US into a war with Iraq. All you are doing is repeating the same silly talking points that bush used to link the war in Iraq with Sept 11. Those talking points have been proven false.

The War in Iraq was related to, and began with, Sept 11. That is a FACT. Whether Iraq had anything specifically to do with Sept 11 may debated but the Iraq war was, and is, considered by Bush to be part of the “war on terrorism” which came straight out of 9/11. How you could not associate the two in your “WW III” is beyond me…

 

[Charade]

The WTC stuff and Afghanistan just won't get counted?

Apparently not. Nor do the terrorist events in Bali, Madrid, London, etc...

 

[TheDoctor]

Wrong!

She's talking about the global war on terrorism and not specifically the war in Iraq.

No it is you who are wrong. She was talking about going to war with Syria and Iran (and I guess the rest of the Muslim world). The war in Iraq was not related to Sept. 11 in any way other than through the PR attempts by bush to get the American people to support this silly war by causing them to believe that Saddam was behind the attacks on Sept 11. The bushies and the few who still support this war still believe that Saddam was responsible for Sept. 11 despite all evidence to the contrary. The war in Iraq was based on lies and a good PR campaign but is in no way related to the attacks on Sept. 11

 

[TheDoctor]

The WTC stuff and Afghanistan just won't get counted?

The attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept 11 and Afghanstan are related. No one disputes going to war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanstan. However, rather than completing the job, bush took us to war in Iraq and let Bin Ladin escape. Now, the Taliban are back in Afghanstan and Bin Ladin is still free to plan and sponsor attacks.

 

[billythefish]

No it is you who are wrong. She was talking about going to war with Syria and Iran (and I guess the rest of the Muslim world). The war in Iraq was not related to Sept. 11 in any way other than through the PR attempts by bush to get the American people to support this silly war by causing them to believe that Saddam was behind the attacks on Sept 11. The bushies and the few who still support this war still believe that Saddam was responsible for Sept. 11 despite all evidence to the contrary. The war in Iraq was based on lies and a good PR campaign but is in no way related to the attacks on Sept. 11

I disagree with this to a certain extent. After failing to get Bin Laden, they needed someone to lash out at to prove that their so called war on terror was a success. Iraq seemed like an easy target at the time.

 

[TheDoctor]

She's talking about the global war on terrorism and not specifically the war in Iraq. Geez you're like a broken record.

John, you need to go read the post. Here it is.

I think when all is said and done Bush's legacy will be that he started WWIII. That is if anyone is left to record it.

This poster was not talking about the global war on terror but a real shooting war with Iran, Syria and the rest of the muslim world.

 

[ButchJohnson]

 

[TheDoctor]

I disagree with this to a certain extent. After failing to get Bin Laden, they needed someone to lash out at to prove that their so called war on terror was a success. Iraq seemed like an easy target at the time.

bush was planning to go after Saddam and Iraq well before the war in Afghanstan and well before Bin Ladin escaped. The reason that Bin Ladin got away is that bush had diverted the special forces from Afghanstan so that these special forces could participate in the silly war in Iraq. Bush has been trying to justify going to war against Saddam since before he was elected and well before Sept. 11. Immediatedly after Sept. 11, bush asked Richard Clarke and others to come up with proof to link Sept. 11 with Saddam and that led to the silly claims about Atta being in Prague at the same time he was in the United States.

Again, the Senate intelligence committee carefully looked at all evidence and concluded that there is no link between Saddam/Iraq and the attacks on Sept. 11.

 

[ButchJohnson]

bush was planning to go after Saddam and Iraq well before the war in Afghanstan and well before Bin Ladin escaped. The reason that Bin Ladin got away is that bush had diverted the special forces from Afghanstan so that these special forces could participate in the silly war in Iraq. Bush has been trying to justify going to war against Saddam since before he was elected and well before Sept. 11. Immediatedly after Sept. 11, bush asked Richard Clarke and others to come up with proof to link Sept. 11 with Saddam and that led to the silly claims about Atta being in Prague at the same time he was in the United States.

Again, the Senate intelligence committee carefully looked at all evidence and concluded that there is no link between Saddam/Iraq and the attacks on Sept. 11.

I agree that its time to get out of Iraq, and the current direction is not the way to go (fighting a prolonged guerrilla style war with terrorists), but the job of getting rid of Saddam and that regime was accomplished, and I think that was a very good thing. There was no doubt Saddam was plotting and may have eventually orchestrated a terrorist attack on us, possibly eventually with nuclear weapons if he was allowed to develop them, which they were working on. (Why else would have Isreal bombed his nuke sites?)

Saying it was silly is going to far. If we did nothing and left him alone and he was allowed to develop nukes, or even if he utilized more conventional WMD to give to terrorists to hit the mainland US or even US territories, many of you would be screaming from the roof tops that "Bush knew the threat Saddam posed and stood by and did nothing."

 

[LuvDuke]

The War in Iraq was related to, and began with, Sept 11. That is a FACT. Whether Iraq had anything specifically to do with Sept 11 may debated but the Iraq war was, and is, considered by Bush to be part of the “war on terrorism” which came straight out of 9/11. How you could not associate the two in your “WW III” is beyond me…

No, what is a FACT is that 9/11 had nothing to do with the Iraq war other than giving the Bush administration an excuse to go after Iraq. Bush spit on the graves of the 9/11 victims by using those victims to go after Saddam Hussein. Bush also used the patriotism and grieving of the American people to divide us so he could squeeze out one more vote.

As far as Bush considering the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror, Bush has no problem blowing smoke up his own butt as everyone else around him is blowing it up his. And his new and improved Iraq policy, "Stay the course with more troops and more money", is just more of the same.

 

[bimshire]

And for the second time, IF you considered it ONE big war, as Lake Ariel suggests - WWIII - it began on September 11.

If you don't, you don't.

Chalk this one up as among the 30% diehard supporter of bush. I guess it was an overdose of the "lemonade."