Iran: There's going to be war.

RE: Re: RE: Iran: There

PCB:

That's HIS, and the Islamists', idea. They cant. We'll win out.

 

RE: Re: RE: Iran: There

Something has to be done about Iran, and something will happen, most likely an Israeli strike before anyone else.

Islamic extremism is the most dangerous threat the world has ever seen. More dangerous than facism and much more dangerous than communism. How many facists or communists were suicide bombers?

And Iran is the head of the snake. They support, train, fund, and arm terrorists not only in their own country, but also in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, to name three.

They want nukes. That is obvious and not even worth a debate. Diplomatic action will occur as long as possible, but just before they get nukes, Israel will attack, they have no other choice. And anyone with a sense of history knows what happens when Israel fights a war.

 

Andy is right.. but while the head of the snake may be Iran, the body resides in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

The two current events, SA Saud visits Pope and Musharraf's problems, having a deep bearing on this.

And Islamists' similarity to the fascists and communists is that all three have/had cells embedded in the west and North America.

 

And we have "cells" embedded more places than they do, so I like our chances better.

Self-preservation may not be an important quality to a poor servant, but leaders of any description realize leading is hard to do six feet under.

 

Iran: State makes smart move.

Refer back to an earlier post, PCB.. we have cells, at least moles, in their cells. And not CIA undercover types, either.

And the Bush Admin makes a good move..

The New York Sun
'This Pretty Much Kills the Iran Democracy Program'

This attitude is reflected on several conservative blogs.

I disagree. The Iranian opposition has already gone on record as not wanting any money from the US. They could use it, they like the US but they dont want any taint of foreign influence to rally the populace against them.

So.. judge for yourself if the money is REALLY going to be cut.

Now juxtapose that as to Bush dumb idea of making it look like he's telling Musharref what to do. No matter WHAT it is.

 

RE: Iran: State makes smart move.

I think he meant army bases, secret prisions, embassy's etc.

 

Don, I'm confused. Clinton did bomb Iraq:

This was taken from http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=41730

If anything this is evidence that Clinton agreed to the "wedge issue" that you speak of, as is the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which made effecting regime change in Iraq the official policy of the US govt. Both the bombing and the act occurred after Clinton recieved a letter from the Project for a New American Century advising regime change in Iraq and signed by 40 neocons. This letter was made public.

Did the wedge issue backfire on the neocons or did Clinton take military action to secure a democratic successor? Of course some say Clinton dropped the bombs to divert attention from Monica and him. I happen to believe that Clinton, like Bush, took military action for national security concerns (or human rights in the case of Kosovo/Bosnia).

Don, I'm not saying you're wrong for thinking neocons want wars to secure elections. I just dont see the evidence of it in the facts that I am familiar with. Instead, I see evidence to the contrary. Also, it would take a lot of evidence for me to call Clinton or Bush murderers. To me that's what they would be if they used military action to win elections or divert attention from political problems.

I dont think there were serious accusations that Saddam was involved in 911. I believe the accusations were that he had ties to al queda, but I have no opinion on that subject. There certainly were terrorists groups, other than his govt, in Iraq at the time. But I dont have the time or patience to keep the various terrorists groups and thier connections to al queda straight. It seems rather irrelevant to me because most of Washington and Europe thought Saddam was a threat prior to 911. Considering the sanctions against Iraq, I dont think it unreasonable people would be concerned that he would at least sell weapons to terrorists in order to make money- ties or no ties to al queda.

Now, it's time we get on with the real business - COYW!

 

Dont even TALK about Common Sense in that effect!

When you know FULL well, that the largest impetus. 'excuse' anyway, to WWII was the punitive 'Diplomatic Sanctions" put on Germany as part of the WWI 'Peace'.

Once THAT war was won... we cut and ran. Sounds a lot like the 'Gulf War' doesnt it.

Iran is different, of course, but it's those who continually bleat about 'minding our own business' that sets up things like this. We DID do diplomacy, every way shape and form, but international 'self interests' DONT converge. As in the case of Russia playing with Iranian Nuclear fire in the hopes of containing it.

Address that US let France and Germany and Russia {that bunch sound familiar?} try to talk sense to Iran.

Address the terror cells that I know are in North America ..you refuse to believe that, are they or or not?

 

He'res what happens when we mind our own business... as a government anyway.. some still dont:
Venezuela a few years ago:


Venezuela now:

 

ohfergodsake, we've been over this ground!

You could certianly say that Islamic extremism has the potential to be the greatest threat the world has ever seen, were it to live up to its potential. To say that it IS right now, your nuts.

To say that oh we've already done the negotiations and it just didn't work so gosh darn we'll just have to fight another war is also nuts. Its one thing to negotiate willy nilly, its another thing to negotiate when the heat, the tension, the consequences, the death of war are looming.

Another point, you know a lot of people seem to be down right eager to go fight a war, another war. Two's not good enough we need three! As if it were a good thing, as if World War Three is a reality we should strive to create. Whats the twisted logic in this? Is this some self full-filling fantasy to create and be apart of a new greatest generation? Is it just me or are most of the people pushing this view, this desire, this inevitability, this well its a wash we might as well start nuking Tehran at two this afternoon, not of the draftable age?

 

And the same happens when we do mind their business, see Darfur, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Burma, the former USSR, which looks more and more like the well... USSR, every day.

Venezuela was actually OUR fault, we tried TWICE to COUP this guy, and both times we were pushed back. You can say whatever you want about him, but when poor people like someone, its hard to convince them this person is BAD.

We've never successfully built a nation. There are more communist and fascist countries, now than this time LAST YEAR... all under the most involved tenure of TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE.

Don, it doesnt take a teacher to point out the obvious. What you posted was dead on. The GREATEST THREAT? TERRORISTS? AHHAHAHAHAH.....

Those who say that, to quote our GOP in general, are, in my mind, "aiding the terrorists". You just give them WAY more credit then they deserve.

Are we the posterchild of great diplomacy?? IF you think so, ask a nonenglish foreigner... they might have a different opinion.

 

As opposed to the LEFT WING states?

And I'm not 'shaking in my boots'.. they will be defeated.. mainly by -gasp- Muslims!

All I try to point out here is the FAILURE of diplomacy to solve the worlds problems when the playing field is either artificially or de facto uneven.

All the good intentions in the world mean squat.

 

Somehow I dont think invading nations could be categorized as "good intentions".

 

Of course "invading countries" can be good intentioned. To immediately stop the genocide in Dafur there would have to be an invasion. France had to be invaded in 1944. Invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein is ipso facto "good intentioned".

Comparing the KKK to Islamic terrorism is asinine and ignorant. When is the last time the KKK highjacked an airplane or successfully bombed anything or anybody?

9/11, Madrid, and London says Islamic terrorism should be taken seriously. How stupid is it not to?

The problem with some of you is that you want to downplay actual events, events where people really were killed. Bush and company deserve criticism for exaggerating threats.. but that is mostly becasue they don't need to exaggerate threats. 9/11 actually happened. Madrid actually happened. London actually happened. There was such a thing as the Taliban and al Qaeda before the invasion of Iraq. Theo van Gogh actually was murdered by a Muslim radical.

Are Muslim radicals about to takeover the world? No. Does that mean there's no threat? Of course not.

 

Who invaded Kuwait, Smokin?

 

Perhaps we should return to the good old days when instead of invading we bomb the crap out of two entire cities and inflict years of nuclear fallout/sickness.

I know that's in bad taste but there is a point there.

 

Saddam did... but that was a different war... and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11...

Lyle... not sure if you using this to prove a point, but no one said there was NO threat, we are saying it barely blips on the screen with Nazi's, holocausts, and genocides... armies with navy's and caches of weapons...

"The greatest threat we've ever faced" is on its face STUPID and irresponsible. But if you guys are talking about winning or beating a threat we are doing it wrong... the tactics we use now are the same tactics used to grow this radicalism... and yes its called BLOWBACK its been proven.

We can try to kill them all, thats just as stupid as the above.

MO, please read a bit more about whats goin on in IRAQ. We are using depleted Uranium rounds that have a VERY similar fallout type result.
We also bombed a nation... a SEEN and HEARD enemy with a frontline.

The Taliban has nothing to do with IRAQ, and yes... its true, they are fighting their way back up in Afghanistan, because we never finished that off like we should of.

The KKK deserves the terrorism label, I agree with Don, its irresponsible to let GW define what a terrorist means and more so for you to just forget about burning crosses and what not.

How does France even equate to anything we are talking about here?
It was invaded to take it back from the Germans who invaded it. Thats an act of war and strategy, both absent from this quagmire in IRAQ.

So lets kill everyone who doesnt agree and give up on diplomacy altogether.

 

You're almost as good at circles as Don is...

Diplomacy.. THEN WHAT... Understand ? THEN WHAT?

NEVER ENDING DIPLOMACY until the one who negotiates in bad faith gets everything he wants!

How hard IS it to understand that!