Regime change in Iran if Bush wins

[slavdogg]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=39512 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39512)
Following leaked reports yesterday that Israel is ready to strike against several of Iran's nuclear power facilities if Russia supplies the Ayatollah's with rods for enriching uranium, a senior U.S. official said America will take actions to overturn the regime in Iran if President Bush is elected for a second term.



more news

Israel 'ready' to strike Iran
If Russia supplies Islamic state with rods for enriching uranium
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=39506 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39506)

[Torone]

"on condition of anonymity" is where the problem comes in. Whether you agree or disagree with what was said, that phrase means that there is basically no source. If you cannot research the statement, you are expected to take it on faith. I don't do that. After all, who IS the anonymous source? Some low-level janitor? Hell, I could be the source!

[Bishop]

Torone is now suspected to be the unnamed source.

[Rolo]

I doubt any present president or presidential candidate has the insight to be the force behind any regime change in Iran (I will be susprised to see an attack on Iran from the US with military force - too many things can/will go wrong)... and they do not have the charisma to make people want to change - they are both "status quo"... I think we will have to wait 2-4 presidents, before someone will be president, who got all the needed charistics, visions and leadership skills. And to think of it, I´m not so sure it will be a US president, that will win the minds and souls of the arab world, so they can evolve... more likely it will be a EU president.

[Mike AI]

Iran has needed regime change for a long time. Good enough reason for me to vote for Bush.

:D

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jul 19 2004, 07:20 AM
Iran has needed regime change for a long time. Good enough reason for me to vote for Bush.

:D
why not, the 300 dollar check worked last time;)

plus i hear you get a free toy surprise with evey vote, and a personal hand job from Ann Coulter;)

[Phoenix]

this cant be good news.

i read a factoid claiming that 81% of staged attacks against North american nuclear power plants and facilities were succesful.

Scary stuff

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Torone@Jul 19 2004, 08:46 AM
"on condition of anonymity" is where the problem comes in. Whether you agree or disagree with what was said, that phrase means that there is basically no source. If you cannot research the statement, you are expected to take it on faith. I don't do that. After all, who IS the anonymous source? Some low-level janitor? Hell, I could be the source!
I actually kind of agree with you here ... when "names ain't named", you have to take a lot of things into consideration.

[Edit - my cat thought I was done.]

First thing I do when somebody posts a link to an article on the web is check out the main page of the site (not just when Peaches posts a link :)). I was underwhelmingly impressed with worldnetdaily.com.

My personal favorite article on the main page was the one about the Senate candidate promising to campaign to pull the U.S. out of the U.N. That said everything I needed to know about the website in question ...

The United States is hardly in a position to impose democracy at the point of a gun in Iran, for a whole lot of reasons. I understand WHY the barrage of attempts to link Iran to 9/11 took place this weekend, and I'm greatful that at least no one has (yet) tried to link the Iranians to the grave threats confronting both our national security AND the "threat to marriage" ... but it is pretty pathetic.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jul 19 2004, 11:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jul 19 2004, 11:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Torone@Jul 19 2004, 08:46 AM
"on condition of anonymity" is where the problem comes in. Whether you agree or disagree with what was said, that phrase means that there is basically no source. If you cannot research the statement, you are expected to take it on faith. I don't do that. After all, who IS the anonymous source? Some low-level janitor? Hell, I could be the source!
I actually kind of agree with you here ... when "names ain't named", you have to take a lot of things into consideration.

[Edit - my cat thought I was done.]

First thing I do when somebody posts a link to an article on the web is check out the main page of the site (not just when Peaches posts a link :)). I was underwhelmingly impressed with worldnetdaily.com.

My personal favorite article on the main page was the one about the Senate candidate promising to campaign to pull the U.S. out of the U.N. That said everything I needed to know about the website in question ...

The United States is hardly in a position to impose democracy at the point of a gun in Iran, for a whole lot of reasons. I understand WHY the barrage of attempts to link Iran to 9/11 took place this weekend, and I'm greatful that at least no one has (yet) tried to link the Iranians to the grave threats confronting both our national security AND the "threat to marriage" ... but it is pretty pathetic. [/b][/quote]


Torone and PD agreeing on something.

This is a scary sign.


Grimm, I would rather have a hand job from Ann Coulter then from Babs Steisand!!

:lol:

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jul 19 2004, 08:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jul 19 2004, 08:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Torone@Jul 19 2004, 08:46 AM
"on condition of anonymity" is where the problem comes in. Whether you agree or disagree with what was said, that phrase means that there is basically no source. If you cannot research the statement, you are expected to take it on faith. I don't do that. After all, who IS the anonymous source? Some low-level janitor? Hell, I could be the source!
I actually kind of agree with you here ... when "names ain't named", you have to take a lot of things into consideration.

[Edit - my cat thought I was done.]

First thing I do when somebody posts a link to an article on the web is check out the main page of the site (not just when Peaches posts a link :)). I was underwhelmingly impressed with worldnetdaily.com.

My personal favorite article on the main page was the one about the Senate candidate promising to campaign to pull the U.S. out of the U.N. That said everything I needed to know about the website in question ...

The United States is hardly in a position to impose democracy at the point of a gun in Iran, for a whole lot of reasons. I understand WHY the barrage of attempts to link Iran to 9/11 took place this weekend, and I'm greatful that at least no one has (yet) tried to link the Iranians to the grave threats confronting both our national security AND the "threat to marriage" ... but it is pretty pathetic. [/b][/quote]
Listen to your cat.


;-))))

[dig420]

Yeah. It worked out real well with our last Iranian puppet regime, I'm glad we have an administration capable of learning from recent history.

[Vick]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by dig420@Jul 19 2004, 04:38 PM
Yeah. It worked out real well with our last Iranian puppet regime, I'm glad we have an administration capable of learning from recent history.


If the shah was not dying from cancer, and the US would have intervened sooner Khoymeni would have stayed in France.

We don't need a puppet in Iran. I would be happy just to knock out their nuclear facilities, and prevent them from interfering in Iraq.

[slavdogg]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jul 19 2004, 11:16 AM
I was underwhelmingly impressed with worldnetdaily.com.
WND is a real good site
when it comes to news about Middle East

[slavdogg]

Unlike Iraq
i bet we would get support to from a lot of Arabs to topple Iran's regime
especially Egypt's and Saudis
Arabs are afraid of Persians getting nuks as much as US and Israelis are

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by slavdogg@Jul 19 2004, 06:07 PM
Unlike Iraq
i bet we would get support to from a lot of Arabs to topple Iran's regime
especially Egypt's and Saudis
Arabs are afraid of Persians getting nuks as much as US and Israelis are


Come on Slav, don't you know if Bush orders troops into Iran it will be for Oil and Halliburton!!!

http://protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/pw_sign_22.gif

[Mike AI]

http://protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/pw_sign_10.gif

I love these guys - they have some great signs.

http://protestwarrior.com/signs.php?sign=1

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+Jul 19 2004, 01:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ Jul 19 2004, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jul 19 2004, 08:16 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Torone@Jul 19 2004, 08:46 AM
"on condition of anonymity" is where the problem comes in. Whether you agree or disagree with what was said, that phrase means that there is basically no source. If you cannot research the statement, you are expected to take it on faith. I don't do that. After all, who IS the anonymous source? Some low-level janitor? Hell, I could be the source!
I actually kind of agree with you here ... when "names ain't named", you have to take a lot of things into consideration.

[Edit - my cat thought I was done.]

First thing I do when somebody posts a link to an article on the web is check out the main page of the site (not just when Peaches posts a link :)). I was underwhelmingly impressed with worldnetdaily.com.

My personal favorite article on the main page was the one about the Senate candidate promising to campaign to pull the U.S. out of the U.N. That said everything I needed to know about the website in question ...

The United States is hardly in a position to impose democracy at the point of a gun in Iran, for a whole lot of reasons. I understand WHY the barrage of attempts to link Iran to 9/11 took place this weekend, and I'm greatful that at least no one has (yet) tried to link the Iranians to the grave threats confronting both our national security AND the "threat to marriage" ... but it is pretty pathetic.
Listen to your cat.


;-)))) [/b][/quote]
Might I suggest, sir, that right after tea you go attempt to piss into the wind?

[Nickatilynx]

PD,
Lighten up , it was too easy a wisecrack to let slip.

;-)))

Your "Sir" rewminds me of my first day in the army...and our Drill Sgt's practrised speil:

"Gentlemen , and I use the term loosely , I will call you "Sir " as you are officer candidates.
You will call me "Sir" because I am your instructor.
The difference is you will MEAN it. "

;-)))

[PornoDoggy]

I was once told that I had an outstanding ability to make the word "sir" sound like an insult :)

[Nickatilynx]

LOL

Ah yeah...in England it usually starts:

""Sir! Queens regulations specifically state...yadda yadda ,Sir!"

(pretty much translates into you are giving an unwise and probably an illegal order and now I'm going to call you a C*&t....)

I always opted for the....

"Is this an act of mutiny ? Sgt , arrest this man and bring him in front of OOW asap .I think we'll let him and the CO work this out"

the Sgt winked at me ,so I assumed it was the correct course of action.

;-)))

Didn't ever happen again ;-)))

[dig420]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jul 19 2004, 11:16 AM
The United States is hardly in a position to impose democracy at the point of a gun in Iran, for a whole lot of reasons. I understand WHY the barrage of attempts to link Iran to 9/11 took place this weekend, and I'm greatful that at least no one has (yet) tried to link the Iranians to the grave threats confronting both our national security AND the "threat to marriage" ... but it is pretty pathetic.
It's much too dangerous to hold Presidential elections in a time of perma-war.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by dig420+Jul 19 2004, 10:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dig420 @ Jul 19 2004, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Jul 19 2004, 11:16 AM
The United States is hardly in a position to impose democracy at the point of a gun in Iran, for a whole lot of reasons. I understand WHY the barrage of attempts to link Iran to 9/11 took place this weekend, and I'm greatful that at least no one has (yet) tried to link the Iranians to the grave threats confronting both our national security AND the "threat to marriage" ... but it is pretty pathetic.
It's much too dangerous to hold Presidential elections in a time of perma-war. [/b][/quote]


Dig how are your conversions going with new program? You are doing PPS correct? Our interracial site is doing much better then expected. I think we should trade signups.

[spazlabz]

Originally posted by Vick@Jul 19 2004, 01:53 PM
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
from the Sum of all fears right?


spaz :matey:

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by spazlabz+Jul 20 2004, 05:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spazlabz @ Jul 20 2004, 05:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Vick@Jul 19 2004, 01:53 PM
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
from the Sum of all fears right?


spaz :matey: [/b][/quote]
I don't really think that's WHO did that ...