My teacher was telling me that in his tour of Iraq, they found a few buried planes. No attached nukes, but nevertheless intentionally buried Iraqi planes. There was also a convoy of trucks seen going from Iraq to Iran. My teacher saw both things.

It would seem theres more truth to Bush's famous quote than the media has led us to believe.

And no, what with being the cause of the trade deficit, I am not necessarily a fan of Bush.

That means four fifths of eff-all other than your teacher has the gift of sight. [or more accurately....claims to be able to see].

He wasnt the only person to see it, and actually theres an article about it somewhere (which ill now look for) so...

It's entirely possible 'he' read that article too. See, that convoy happened before the war. So, how did he 'see' it?

And buried jets? Sure... to make a quick getaway, most likely.

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

Look, JCD, it's not the first time wars have been started based on lies, and, unfortunately, it won't be the last. Imagine this if you will, but a war was once started (and lots of people killed) just to *sell newspapers*.

Don't believe me? Look up the Maine incident in 1898, William R. Hearst, and the Spanish-American war.

I wonder if a time will come when we, as human beings, will finally refuse to be led to senseless wars motivated by the hidden agendas of our leaders.

Wow, the attack on the good guys...

... the little problem is that Israel was stealing from US nuclear stockpiles long time ago:

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=1876

And has a serious arsenal of nukes. Why is it okay for Israel to have nukes, and not okay for Iran? Israel has been committing atrocities against Palestinians in the Gaza strip for long time - retaliatory attacks against civilian buildings, violence against unarmed civilians, etc. 

Iran is the last defiant oil producing country that has been able to resist the western pressure and military conquest to control Middle Eastern oil supplies. Let us not forget that USA killed hundreds of thousands of civilians during the Iraq invasion, throwing the country into chaos and disrupting people's everyday life. 

Then it was Lybia, ravaged by militant groups armed, paid and supported by European and American influence. 

No wonder Iran wants nuclear weapons - it's the only safeguard against similar fate. So I would be careful before you call someone stupid, DrJBHL.

*edited -Moderation.

I personally believe that Israel and USA are the biggest threat now - USA is a de-facto bankrupted country (just see the debt-clock - 100% debt-to-GDP ratio, no way to even slow it down), with increasing social tensions and deepening oil dependency, and Israel, a factual US outpost in the oil-rich Middle East, unable to hold position in the long term on its own. The recent influx of fascist legislature (NDAA 2012, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, etc.), growing tolerance to totalitarian practices like torture, it's all very alarming.

While I would agree with that based solely on a fairness point of view, there is also that little fact that Iran was, not so long ago, being run by religious extremists who still have a great deal of power in that country. And while the Israelis are no innocent children either, at least they don't go around blowing themselves up - and everyone else in the vicinity, including women and children - every time someone says something they don't like about YHWH.

As for your comment regarding the US, unfortunately I tend to agree. The US had the world at their feet right after September 11th, and were looked at and respected by most of the world as the 'good guys' before that... until Bush decided to invade Iraq. After that, the US has been on a fascist path fueled by fear.

As Benjamin Franklin himself said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

KamamuraCZ:

Let's try to keep it conceptual/non-personal...

I must have misunderstood what my teacher said.

What?

Anyways, as far as policing the ENTIRE world, yes, we need to not overextend ourselves, but as far as being in the middle east we are somewhat justified. As other countries rise the US falls. We need oil. As far as "killing civilians" goes, no, we didnt "kill civilians" they were simply casualities caused by both sides ignoramus (@Kamamura). You think our soldiers just go around shooting little tikes in the head or blowing off peoples limbs for the fun of it? No, dont send me that link your thinking of; the few dont define the many, the many define the many.

At best we are in the middle east to keep America's power above China, North Korea, Russia and everyone else, and if it means bringing civilization and democratic government to the liberated then what are we doing wrong?

  .....

1.  'Policing' the world isn't working.  Need more evidence than that already before you?  A nation can only hope to 'police' their own; reaching into someone else's back pocket never ends well.

2.  No......no nation is and ever will be 'justified' in invading another other than to stop an aggressor if one nation (ie. WWII Germany) is intent on suppressing others by invading its neighbors.  Invasion for any other reason is about suppression and subversion nothing more.  Read some more history (world history that is) and you'll begin to see why that is.

3.  When a nation decides to invade another and civillians (as they invariably will) get killed this is a direct result of said invasion and nothing else.  Splitting hairs and suggesting "you think our soldiers go around shooting little tikes in the head etc. for fun....?.." is of no consequence; the civillian is still dead and in this case dead because a foreign power invaded.

4.  The few DO define the many.  Which is why we as a society must always endeavour to correct the actions of the few who threaten to skew the perception of the many.  If this is not the case, then why have the Islamic groups (non-violent religious groups) had such trouble convincing the world not all Islamists want US interests dead?

5.  Keeping America's power above that of other nations?  What are we in grade-school here?  My dad is bigger/stronger than yours.......

Also, if you still actually believe that the US is in any real position of power then you really do need to stop using CNN as your source of [reality] information.

6.  Lastly, you don't "bring civilization and democratic government to the liberated".  No one does.  Know why?  Because what works for one people/nation may not and in many cases will not work for others.  Of course knowing and understanding this means one has to learn something other than American history (which sadly so few americans actually do).  Many of these nations you think you could bring to heel to your "idea" of freedom, democrazy etc. simply don't have the sociatal structure necessary or capable of accepting such change.  For instance some of those middle-easterns nations have had feudal conflicts between family and/or religious factions dictating governing (and I use this term loosely) powers for centuries.  Who are you/we to suggest we know "the better way" for them to govern/live?

.....sigh

/end rant for the day!   

Because Israel has no intention of eradicationg and exterminating another people. Israel does not and did not threaten Ahmadinajad nor the Ayatollas. He is an anti-Israeli and an antisemitic psychopath. He's been tolerated for too long.

There is no "fairness" involved here. Say you have a hunting rifle. Then so should a homicidal maniac: Hey, you're both human beings, right? Wrong: The criterion is safety and sanity. Israel developed the atom bomb because of the neighborhood it lives in: Or did all those Arab nations (and their armies, air forces, and paramilitaries) just vote to renounce their hatred of Israel and Jews and embrace peace? Must have missed that. Despite all existential threats, Israel has not used them. Amadinajad needs no 'existential threat'.

Should America have given Japan of 1941 or the Third Reich an atom bomb out of "fairness"? Ridiculous and suicidal. I have a major problem with an atom bomb in the hands of that psychopath.

Sure we do. We, out of laziness have been addicted to oil and what's better than oil? Other people's oil.

Let's agree: Oil is as strategically necessary now as it was back in the '70's. Have we been serious about replacing it? No. Have we developed and explored for our own? We have plenty of oil. We chose not to develop and look for more. We even chose to decline a great deal with Canada, so please.... let's not suddenly panic.

Poor planning and execution on the part of the government is not an 'emergency' for anyone else until we make it one. So, we did nothing, and now the oil market belongs to China and India. More great strategic thinking and planning.

Honestly, did anyone really believe Rumsfeld when he said the war was due to WMD's and not oil? lol. As a result of that war, there's no real answer (local) to Iran.

And the newest story? Iran initiates its newest generation of centrifuges made there, and let no one kid you, they aren't for making medical isotopes. They are for enriching Uranium beyond 20%.

An amazingly ironic statement, considering Israel was first established by none other than eradicating and exterminating another people.

Is there a people on the planet who has NOT done that at some time in their history?

Irony can bite EVERYONE in the bum.....

No, our current foreign policy isnt working.

Your implying that America is stealing from other countries? How? Who? What are we stealing? We invade, set up democratic governments, and in return the people like us and so trade their goods. Thats not to say that its okay for our businesses to go overseas and exploit other countries, but that isnt a direct result of invasion. Its a separate problem that calls for regulation.

Ahh, but our being in the middle east is an act of defense. America always seeks a bigger stick, so as to be better equipped to negotiate and demand of other countries. By always being more powerful, we dont have to worry about defending ourselves because nations are too scared to defy us in the first place. It IS justified, so long as we american people make sure we elect the right politicians.

Exactly; casualties happen. Military leaders (at least nowdays) are taught to minimize casualties as much as possible, but unfortunately such is the consequence of war: casualties. Its no different than when someone gets in an accident and kills some people. Yes there are reckless drivers, and drunk ones, but not all drivers that end up accidentally killing people deserve blame. Sometimes accidents just happen. As for the people that are reckless, they should be courmartialed which they are 99% of the time.

I understand what your saying actually. The few CAN give a false pretense about the true definition of the many, but in the end the many do indeed truly define the many.

I realize that sometimes a few apples spoil the bunch (or vice versa), and at one time I would have agreed with you, but one must consider what islamists believe. Yes, not all islamists want to blow themselves up, but all islamists read the Qur'an, which all copies of openly mention and declare the constitution an abomination before God and [insert other freedom and america hating things]. There are some islamists that dont agree with everything in the Qur'an (regarding all the hate against america) and those people get cool points with me.

It has nothing to do with "oh I am powerful and better than you" and everything to do with bettering our nations strengths against people that want to see it fall by using the same methods of strengthening their nation (invading, occupying, negotiating (in other words foreign policy)).

Even if America was in decline, it's definitely still the most powerful nation on earth.

This statement isnt necessarily false, but I dont like its implications. Granted there are certain situations the US should approach differently, and some they should back off of... anyways you got me here.

Anyways, dont think I like everything our government has done. I cling to tea party republican values, but am not satisfied with either party. Im for small government, yadayadayada.

Wrong.

There is ALWAYS a reason for an 'accident'...so much so that the cutesy term 'accident' is simply to appease Joe Public.

It's why  'we' like to use the term 'culpable driving' instead of 'murder by car' or at least 'manslaughter by car'.

NEVER fool yourself that you are NOT to blame.