US Aggressor Planned Iran-Israel-US War

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Since Iran is fighting us in Iraq

they are? but Mr Bush hasnt said anything like that

we're winning in Iraq

we do?! cool.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Yeah, the israelis may make such an attack if they considered it nessecary, but I seriously doubt that they would do it due to some whim made up by a US gov.

well they do get a few billion $ every year from that US gov....

[Wiglaf]

It didn't happen. This is silly speculation. Go talk about Clinton bombing Saddam to get the attention off Monica and his blowjob. Better yet, go play football or something else.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by MarkG
well they do get a few billion $ every year from that US gov....

Yep, that they have got for many years - still they have managed to act reasonably sane so why the hell should they stop doing that ?

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by MarkG
i dont recall such a scenario ever being published by major media

then again i dont follow US politics on a daily basis....

Come on, the entire US administration is threatening Iran all the time. This is just a part of it. Expected. Like when Bush said that "use of military force can't be excluded" with regards to Iran or something to that effect. That was far more serious threat than what an aide tells a vicepresident "mulled" over (thought over deeply).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Democracy is rule by the people we elect to rule us, not rule by any little ****** walking around. It is best to leave judgments to people in power and then have people hold them accountable in like 5 years. This is Bush's theory and it is also the opinion of many others and myself of course.

de·moc·ra·cy /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Come on, the entire US administration is threatening Iran all the time. This is just a part of it.

so the US goverment is using Newsweek to threaten Iran?

[Wiglaf]

They use the press, of course. In this particular case, who knows. Doesn't matter.

[Wezil]

Governments are well aware of the importance of the media to send messages Mark. Surely you aren't arguing aginst this?

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Kidicious


de·moc·ra·cy /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

What does that prove? Democracy involves electing representatives. Many theorists state that these representatives should act on their own will and not on the whim of public opinion, which is variable and often ill informed. Your post is useless.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


What does that prove? Democracy involves electing representatives. Many theorists state that these representatives should act on their own will and not on the whim of public opinion, which is variable and often ill informed. Your post is useless.

"Government by the people" means nothing to you doesn't it. Why do you have to try to twist the meaning of such a word?

[Seeker]

Is there a date set for Wiglaf's "Fez/Giancarlo" type coming out party?

I mean, given the behaviour of authoritarian power worshippers both in and out of the US Congress, it seems to be a pattern for those who love "letting the 'Big Boys' do what they want"....

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Kidicious


"Government by the people" means nothing to you doesn't it. Why do you have to try to twist the meaning of such a word?

WTF? People elect their representatives, who are more knowledgeable about politics than they are. People do other things besides politics and so place trust in their leaders. A few years later they can observe the results of their leaders' policies and then decide whether to keep them or not.

This means that the ideal politician does not listen to whining and the whims of constituents, because they are no good at prospective judgments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter

Because in our system of government politicians need to listen to their constituent's every whim for fund raising purposes, Bush and Cheney had to fudge things a bit to achieve their rightful authority. Fault the system not the Bush or Cheney.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


WTF? People elect their representatives, who are more knowledgeable about politics than they are. People do other things besides politics and so place trust in their leaders. A few years later they can observe the results of their leaders' policies and then decide whether to keep them or not.

This means that the ideal politician does not listen to whining and the whims of constituents, because they are no good at prospective judgments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter

If we put our trust in them is it democratic for them to do **** behind our back and lie to us.

[Wiglaf]

Yes. Again, ideally, they would not have to answer to us for a while except in the most extreme cases (eg blatant neglect of office). We entrusted them to the position and should not interfere since presumably they are more informed than we are.

However, in the US that is not the case because politicians do need to cater to their constituents' every whims so that they can raise money to stay in office. So Bush and Cheney had to lie a smidgen to gain authority that ideally they should have in the first place.