Iran {retrospective on an old thread}

While I do not claim to be Johnny Blogger or Johnny Foreign Policy, I have read some things in the last few days about possible US led airstrikes against Iran. This sounds like a genius idea from the Bush administration. We should have thought of this a long time ago. :roll:

Why are we fighting in Iraq and now potentially starting something in Iran? It just makes no sense to me at all. We are headed down the wrong path as a country and as an American it pisses me off.

The decisions being made by this administration are a joke. While many of you say Cookie has lost the plot with Fulham, I think W has lost the plot with this country's foreign policy. Why we re-elected this clown is beyond me.

On a side note, I laughed my ass off watching Condie Rice get grilled by California Senator Barbara Boxer yesterday. I hope with all the loot Condie will be making she can get that gap in her teeth fixed. :lol:

 

RE: Iran

1. The gap is now "signature" - She's been very well paid for a long time now and you can pretty well bet that she's been to a top Orthodontist and had the PC Graphic "Before and After "... her only affectation seems to be hair straightener.

2. Yes, we should have elected Kerry... then we could have met and negotiated something with them, as long as the UN Security Council, agreed that is....

3. Dont get your panties in a bunch,... any "airstrikes" will be pretty dam well pinpoint and coordinated. And only done in "worst case scenario". Otherwise, I'll be the first to b@@4ch about it.

Here's something to chew on:
They've gotten everything wrong!

:twisted:

 

RE: Iran

Even a surgical airstrike on facilities in Iran would be considered an act of war, and Iran is a much more formidable opponent than Iraq or Afghanistan.

Fortunately, I think the administration would need to appropriate funds from Congress in order to carry out an attack, and i Don't even think the Reps in Congress would sign off on this unless it was absolutely necessary.

our troops are exhausted and overworked as it is. I think any sort of air strike would lead directly to Iran's invasion of Iraq and if you think the insurgants are a pain in the ass now, imagine them with the support of an entire army behind them.

 

Re: RE: Iran

Whether the strikes are pinpoint or not, is beside the point. Isn't this how the conflict in Iraq started with "pinpoint" airstrikes? The fact of the matter is that we do not need to be in Iraq let alone in Iran. The last thing we need to do is unite two countries that hate one another such as Iraq and Iran for one common bond of hating and fighting the US.

We have no business thinking about going into other ventures with our military right now. Bush and his cronies are clueless right now. We spreading our military so thin here in our homeland that it is a joke.

My good friend will be leaving on Friday for Iraq. He is a member of the National Guard. He is not a full-time member of the Army, he is a prt-timer and W is call them into action. When is enough, enough? I just see this dragging on and on with no end in site.

One thing that bothered me during the election from both candidates was the use of the word, "win." What exactly are we winning? We are not winning anything in Iraq and I do not feel we ever will.

Democracy is great here in the United States and I am happy to be an American, but a democracy is not for everyone all the time. The American government insists on showing democracy down the throats of countries all over the world. Perhaps a democracy is right for some countries, but not all.

I do not care about the elections in a democratic Iraq. Candidates are being killed everyday. Whether we stay there for 10 years or 10 days, a civil war is gonna break out. Let it happen and let's just pull the shades on the Middle East.

 

RE: Iran

Exactly.

But suppose that worst case scenario came about... that is, Iran announces they have nukes and will launch them on Israel (or elsewhere) "unless..!"

What should we do?
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
I DONT GET IT!!!!

If I were to bring up whether or not Bush had an inkling of 9/11, then I would hear about this famous August PDB memo... which only had a heading that "AQ might use airliners".... and was old news, Clinton having known about the Indonesia Training for hi-jackers and an aborted plot in the late 90's

When we invaded Iraq, we heard that we were losing focus on North Korea and Iran.. which might be far worse. But the very people that are grilling Condi today, expositing that she 'should have known' are on record in the late 90's saying that Saddam was a clear and present danger.

We hear variously that US should totally leave the Middle East and not meddle, then we hear criticism that Bush is in bed with the Saud's. We heard first that Bush and the Saud's were holding down the oil price for political reasons and then, when the oil market went nuts, we heard that Bush should do some thing about the price of oil.

How about making the HARD think before carping about policy... consider the VERY REAL PROBLEM of Arab/Islamic Emigres in Europe and the US.. and the seeds being sown there.

We hear that "Bush knew.. or should have known there were no WMD's" but we dont see proof that Saddam was complying with the resolutions... not do we see any nation's Intelligence that said he had none.
we see the Duelfer Report quoted as proof that he had none... yet the section in the same report that explains what Saddam was doing and why is ignored.

You guys can pick and choose what you do and dont like, but EVERYTHING is tied together in this VERY precarious world and SOME people dont have the option of sticking their heads in the sand.

You complain about my seeming meandering all over the place... but it's obvious to me that YOU are the ones that dont get - or refuse to see- the connections.

I can make a case that this whole thing is "Arafat's doing": if there already were a Palestinian state.. then the Islamist's wouldnt have that as an excuse.. but you wouldnt see it.

 

1.About leaving Iraq-It is not that simple. You as a country cant say were going to war with a country then the minute things get tough we will leave and let them deal with that problem.If the US was to leave Iraq this would give all the people that hate America more stuff to talk about.

 

If Iran had nukes and said that then the US would have to go to war. Then they would have to launch airstrikes.

 

Why? North Korea has nukes. We have not gone to war with them. And also, why do WE, the United States of America. have to do everything? Where is the UN? Oh wait, W already burned that bridge.

 

Re: RE: Iran

What we should do and should have done way back in 1947 is tell the Israeli government to piss off.

We give them money, we support them and make amends for their mistakes. They are like a spoiled child. They do wrong and they know that no matter what the US will always be there to bail them out.

In my opinion, Israel is the root of all this evil for the United States in the Middle East. If I were the President, I would cut ties with them and let them fend for themselves.
They are like the little brother who talks crap to older, tougher people, because he knows when push comes to shove, the older brother will come and take care of everything and defend the little brother.

 

If the UN did every on Iraq would Saddam still be in charge of Iraq?

 

In all honesty, does it matter? I mean they hate us and they will hate us later no matter what we do. Who cares? Not me.

 

You say WHY, I say WHY BOTHER!! :lol:

 

I know it is impossible to cut ties with Israel, but they are the root of all the evil in the middle east that the US is having.

Let me ask you this, what good is coming out of the relationship with Israel for the US? Can you name anything positive? I can't think of any.

And one more thing, the countries that hate Israel will not become their best friends. If that was the case, we would have been gone long ago. It sounds like you are saying that if the US leaves "out of nowhere" then miraculously the Palestinians will get along with the Jews. Hmm....that is one I have never heard. Needless to say, this could not be further from the truth my friend.

The Palestinians and the Jews are not gonna ever get along, that is just the way it is my friends.

 

Possibly, but he had no WMD's which is why we went to war. Oh yeah, how are we doing on catching Bin Laden anyways?

 

Because the reason we are hated is NOT "because we are there"... it's simple elemental human nature, we have the guts to change who we are and how we live.

And they dont. We have never lost a war... though we HAVE surrendered. And they have.

We are hated because we succeed and "they" dont. We are hated because of our excesses while they have no say in whether they can allow them or not.

It is PURE greed envy jealousy and lust that makes people hate "us'.

When the emigration/immigration numbers begin to reverse, I'll be taking this "hate US" part seriously.

Do you know what the US / Canada numbers were at last look?

For all the posturing on how Canada is the Land of the REALLY FREE... it's 6-1 in favor of those moving south.

- - - --
Tom, you're talking in circles... didnt you get the post above on "gotten it all wrong"?

WHO KNEW he had no WMD's?!!!!!!!

And "Why bother?" because the die is cast.... a large part of Europe is Islamic. There's a large population of Islamic's in the US.

There are numerous (who knows how many) Imams preaching "ultimate Islamic State" for us and Europe.

So far "Hate Speech" is empirically defined as related to, and done by, "Christians"... there is little mention of the obverse.

 

Brute force and agression is soon to be one of the signatures of the Bush adminsitration if it is not so all ready.
While I am troubled about invading Iraq without Un backing, about alienating so many nations of the wrold, about "surgical" airstrikes towards Iran, which will of course also kill some harmless innocent children, I am also troubled by two other things.

Bush and Rumsfeld are such egoists that they refuse to ever admit fault. Condi Rice seems to be somewhat though she toes her party line. Bush surrounds himself by "yes" men and women.

Also, when does it ever end. And what good is America really doing the world by attacking countries? If these were the right courses of action, wouldn't other countries also want to join in and help?

 

I agree with you here, but why is it the responsiblity of the US to change their world? Why do innocent people like my good friend have to go over to Iraq and possibly die? What exactly are we fighting for?

 

To risk being "hateful" and "Racist".. to keep them from moving here, and some of them a reason to go home.

But, the answer really is "strategic".. it's to prevent another Hiltler... And pressure the rest of Arabia/Islamia to change their world view and come out of their version of our "Dark Ages".

And that includes the Saud's

 

The Saudi's are shady. I have no idea why anyone in the US Govt trusts them. They will turn their backs on us in a heartbeat.

 

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. "

Herman Goering (Nuremburg War Crimes Trial)