Standby...
...for heavy rolls (as we used to say in the Navy).
Seems the Dems are itching for a fight. Not surprising since the vast majority of wars for this country were entered into with Dems in the office of president. Be a nice way to help out the deficit Obama has plunged us into as well.
How much did Bush's invasion of Iraq cost again? Ya know, time flies. Please refresh our memory, what was the financial situation of the US before W's war?
I don't see evidence of "itching for a fight" in that article. The assessment of Iran seems to be a fair and reasonable assessment of the situation, which the administration is trying to counter with sanctions rather than military action. Clinton appears to be trying to hose down Saudi desires for war. Whether she will be successful with Israel remains to be seen.
see, this is confusing. I thought you were all down on those Islamic states and their calamitous natures. Now you're all poo-pooing your government's expressions of concern about said states to the point were you are imagining American war mongering where there is none.Make up your mind!
Quote:Now you're all poo-pooing your government's expressions of concern about said states to the point were you are imagining American war mongering where there is none.Make up your mind! My point is that "our government" should have done something to pull the plug on this nut a long time ago...hopefully with the approval of the UN. They didn't...Obama was too busy trying to make "nice" with all of them...be everybodies "hero". Now, all of a sudden, Clinton comes on and says "they've gone too far". Where have these idiots been the past couple of years? Are they going to wait until he lobs a bomb at somebody before they do something? insert "rolleyes" emoticon hereSomething unseen concerning Iran happened to soil the Obama agenda...so NOW they're calling a spade a spade. These people and their stupid agendas...taking precident over everything else going on in the world. I can't wait until the next election where we vote the majority of them out of office.
Originally Posted By: IneligibleClinton appears to be trying to hose down Saudi desires for war.They've been trying to "hose down" the situation over there for ever. This is the first time open claims that Iran is becoming a military dictatorship have been made by this administration. Doesn't sound like they're hosing things down anymore, does it...sounds like they're laying the groundwork for going over there and closing down the operation; one way or another. Just so happens a war's also a good way of pulling the country out of a recession...and not the first time this tactic has been used to do just that (see "Pumpkin Papers") by a Dem. We'll see in the next couple of years.
I really can't see how you get from an assessment that a country is becoming a military dictatorship, with calls for tougher sanctions, to "Doesn't sound like they're hosing things down anymore, does it...sounds like they're laying the groundwork for going over there and closing down the operation". I think that is in your own mind. US policy under Bush was to avoid war with Iran, for the simple pragmatic reason that the Iranian military is a far more competent force than was the Iraqi military under Hussein. It's not a matter of simply "going over there and closing down the operation". Even in Iraq US supply lines got dangerously stretched, which a more able commander than Hussein could have taken advantage of. The situation hasn't changed in that respect, and there's no evidence of a change in US policy.Iran would not be the first nuclear-armed Islamic state under effective military dictatorship. Pakistan was effectively in that position from 12th October 1999 until 18th August 2008.
so I still don't know what you want. Do you want a war or not?Or are you just waiting for Sara "fucking retard" Palin to swoop in a rescue you?
Originally Posted By: Ineligible...there's no evidence of a change in US policy.Change in foreign policy??? That would be like a boxer telegraphing his blows. No, I don't expect there will be any change in foreign policy. I expect us to be in Iran sooner than that...likely within the next couple of years (it has to happen under the Obama administration). Quote:Iran would not be the first nuclear-armed Islamic state under effective military dictatorship. Pakistan was effectively in that position from 12th October 1999 until 18th August 2008. How can you even attempt to draw comparisons between Pakistan and Iran? Pakistan was not rattling their swords and vowing to wipe Israel off the map. Pakistan was not under the dictatorship of a verbose, swaggering egomaniac. All you liberals need to take a good long look at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...he's the guy you all claimed Bush was; the real deal.
Originally Posted By: unsupervisedso I still don't know what you want. Do you want a war or not?What I want is irrelavant...war is coming. All I'm saying is this could have been nipped in the bud, and wasn't. Quote:Or are you just waiting for Sara "fucking retard" Palin to swoop in a rescue you? See, that's one of the BIG differences between us conservatives and you liberals. You guys EXPECT somebody to come in and save your butts...that's how Obama got elected; he promised to come in and save everybody. Fact is, you all get violently angry if nobody comes in to save you...like a bunch of spoiled children. Us conservatives are under no such delusions...we know that nobody is going to save us other than ourselves, and God.
and who exactly should have nipped Iran in the bud? Let's see, since the islamic revolution, 30 years ago, you've had 3 republican presidents (5 terms) and 2 democrats (2 and a bit terms). Now you say Obama has fucked the whole thing up in the last year? Please explain to the class exactly how that works.Oh, and none of us "liberals" are claiming Amadinijab is anything less than a nut case. Nor are we under the illusion that he is much more than a figure head with very limited power. Actually, you conservatives my publicly condemn the Islamic Republic of Iran but you know that you admire it as model for your dream... the Christian Republic of America.
Originally Posted By: unsupervised
Now you say Obama has fucked the whole thing up in the last year? Please explain to the class exactly how that works.
All one need do is pay attention to what has happened, paying particular attention to the timeline. A lot like playing "connect the dots".
Iran nutcase pushes forward with enriched uranium program in spite of sanctions and warnings of further sanctions.
Obama elected and offers visable olive-branches to all of Islam...you remember me mentioning some of this at the time it happened, and just how dangerous it was. If you understand anything at all about Muslim culture, you know this is seen by them as a sign of weakness, and a green-light to quickly move forward with any aggresive plans.
For whatever reason, Obama now decides they (Iran) have gone too far and make claims that they are now under the control of a military dictatorship. This is the precurser designed to sway public opinion as to the danger Iran presents (though it's really been there all along) and win at least some approval of the general public to go to war over there. Note that this is just the beginning of the operation to sway public opinion...there will be more.
Now, as to how Obama made a mess of things, he should have come down hard on Iran long ago...so should previous presidents when Iran began to ramp up their nuclear program. But where Obama really put his foot in it is to come across to the Muslim population of the world as a weakling president. I have no doubts this hastened an already worsening situation with regards to Irans plans to develop an atomic weapon. By appearing weak, Obama has left us no alternative but to go to war.
What sort of alternative would be war? The US went into Afghanistan, won quick victories, installed a friendly government, and is still stuck there. The US went into Iraq, won quick victories, installed a friendly government, and is still there, trying to get out (and when they do the government is likely to collapse). With Vietnam and Somalia in the background, there are lessons to be learnt, and invading Iran would not seem to be learning them.
Originally Posted By: Ineligible
What sort of alternative would be war? The US went into Afghanistan, won quick victories, installed a friendly government, and is still stuck there. The US went into Iraq, won quick victories, installed a friendly government, and is still there, trying to get out (and when they do the government is likely to collapse). With Vietnam and Somalia in the background, there are lessons to be learnt, and invading Iran would not seem to be learning them.
Who said anything about an invasion? The issue is the nuclear weapons. A surgical air-strike is the real answer. With our stealth technology, which is now greater than it ever has been, they won't even know we were there until after the fact. We've made such a strike before...remember our friend Momar in Libya? We missed him as he wasn't home at the time, but he got the message loud and clear. So would Iran. Thing is, that wouldn't help out the US economy much. So we'll see which way this administration decides to go.
When air-strikes have been made against the US, retaliation has followed. I think we could expect the same from Iran, probably mainly against Israel.
endangering civilians with a radioactive cloud and endangering allies with reprisals is not part of a war monger's equation.
Originally Posted By: IneligibleWhen air-strikes have been made against the US, retaliation has followed. I think we could expect the same from Iran, probably mainly against Israel. To put it bluntly, they just don't have the capability to pose such a threat.
Originally Posted By: unsupervisedendangering civilians with a radioactive cloud and endangering allies with reprisals is not part of a war monger's equation. Not that I buy your estimation of the situation, but even if it were true, it's better than sitting around and waiting for them to develop a bomb...then we'd have to be the ones worrying about making some kind of retaliation (and their strike most certainly would NOT be surgical). Sitting around and doing nothing until we (or somebody) get(s) kicked in the ass is definitely not the way to go. I see Obama wanting an invasion to bring us out of a recession, and I say it's not, nor was it ever, a necessity. He put us in that position.
Quote:To put it bluntly, they just don't have the capability to pose such a threat. Quote:I see Obama wanting an invasion can they or can't they?so far, you've stated that Muslims believe that offers of peace are calls to war and that lack of drastic action equates to inaction. Where do these ideas come from?Were you a supporter of a preemptive strike during the cold war? (sorry for your disappointment) And I still don't quite get this logic of faulting Obama for wanting a war while faulting him for not starting one. No matter how you look at it, your idea of a "surgical strike" is an all out declaration of war on another nation. Do you think that wise?And seriously, IF Iran achieves their nuclear aspirations, then what do you think they'll do? Lob their one bomb as far as they can and then take over the world? That would be a bit like going into a crowded biker bar and taking a swing at one of the guys. Not a good plan by any means.If you want to concern your self with a nuclear threat, I'd suggest you worry about the insane number of bombs that have already been produced. All it takes is a bit of corruption or incompetence and something goes missing. Don't forget, the middle east doesn't hold the monopoly on loonies. possibly too much propaganda is the problem
