One war replaces another

[BadDad]

So mick, do you suggest that we allow france to be responsible for making sure that Iran does not aquire nuclear weapons? Or do you simply not mind if they have them in the first place?

 

Oh i forgot, you are hoping that kerry will be elected, and then he will be able to get the rest of the world to deal with iran an make sure that thy behave. yea...right!

46286[/snapback]

 

 

O.K. Rich, can you please explain how we will be able to invade and occupy Iran when we haven't got enough troops to control Iraq? If you say we simply bomb their facilities and don't actually invade, don't you think they've already thought of that? If we are able to bomb and destroy their nuclear facilities, how would they respond? Not enough terrorism in the region and the world yet? These aren't wisecrack questions, they are real questions so please respnd accordingly.

 

BTW, any military guys who have a reasonable answer please feel free to explain how we can occupy three countries at the same time, three countries that have hostile populations to us in a region that will probably blow up on us with the next incursion.

[KD in CA]

I am just curious what will happen when Joe Schmo terrorist gets a hold of a nuclear weapon... getting HIM won't be nearly as easy.

46492[/snapback]

 

 

Joe Schmo terrorist is most likely to get a nuke from a middle east nuke power, hence the desire to keep any more middle east states from attaining that status.

[_BiB_]

Interesting discussion. You guys honestly think we don't have something up our sleeve?

[_BiB_]

Just out of curiosity for those on the left and the right.... what gives the US or the UN the right to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons?

46357[/snapback]

 

!@#$ the UN. As for us, it's called self preservation.

[KD in CA]

Interesting discussion. You guys honestly think we don't have something up our sleeve? 

46610[/snapback]

 

 

I always assume we have something up our sleeve. If not, we'd be just like the Bills. billsfanone!

[Mickey]

Go to war with Iran if they refuse to give up their nuclear weapons program.

 

Absolutely.

 

Iraq and Iran are two totally different animals... this is actually a legitimate possibility because it ACTUALLY THREATENS us.

 

I am just curious what will happen when Joe Schmo terrorist gets a hold of a nuclear weapon... getting HIM won't be nearly as easy.

46492[/snapback]

 

Iran supported the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, you remember them? They are the same guys we relied on in that war. Iran also remained on the sidelines during Persian Gulf War I. It remained on the sidelines in the Afghanistan war. It has remained on the sidelines during the Iraq war. How many nations has Iran invaded? Zero. How many terrorist activities have been linked to Iran since 9/11?

What threat do they represent that justifies a world war that threatens our survival as much as theirs? How hard will it be for UBL to sell his "crusade" argument to the rest of the muslim world if we invade Iran? Maybe the only thing scarier than Iran having nukes is the alternative, a world war. There has been no national discussion of any of these issues. I think that you have to at least consider the security implications of both confrontation and detente. Attacking Iran might well result in the long anticipated middle east wide Islamic Revolution that has been Iran's goal since 1979. What do you think would be the result of a revolution in Saudi Arabia on our oil supply? Our security situation could easily be worse if we attacked Iran than if we dealt with them the same way we deal with other nuclear powers such as Pakistan.

 

There is also a pretty healthy block of moderates in Iran. In fact, there has been a long struggle between the clerical theocratic rulers and the moderates seeking more political freedom. Their police had to break up a protest for more democracy recently (Police brake up protest) I can't think of a better way to drown those moderates and their movement than to unite all Iranians against us by threatening war so that their nationalistic spirit trumps their political differences. What is the basis for believing that Iran would be any less responsible with nukes than China and the old USSR has been?

 

If you are really worried about terrorists getting nukes, Pakistan is of more concern than Iran. Pakistan has them now and strongly supported the Taleban and AQ for years. Although their government has changed its tune, their people have not. The assassination attempts on Musharraf shows that we are a bullet away from disaster there.

[Mickey]

!@#$ the UN. As for us, it's called self preservation.

46613[/snapback]

 

Even I understand that one bib. The question is whether our survival is enhanced or eroded by such an excursion at this point. I don't care about rights.

 

Any way we can foment a war between Iraq and Iran? Let them fight eachother, things were so much simpler when they were at eachother's throats rather than ours. I have had enough of dividing our friends and uniting our enemies. I'd like to see some of the reverse.

[Ray]

Maybe we can hide our heads in the sand and they will go away. That policy worked real well when the Islamic extremist wackos were attacking our embassies and our Navy ships.

I hate it too, but you have to confront them somehow. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.

[Alaska Darin]

Yeah, that $@#$.  It all comes down to those darn Camp David Peace Accords.  We just couldn't see it then.  If not for the peace between Israel and Egypt that has endured since, none of this would be happening.

46473[/snapback]

Nice deflection. You know damn well what I'm talking about. Put your legs together counselor. Your partisanship is showing.

[_BiB_]

I'm more concerned about Pakistan myself right now. Iran will be made to understand the implications, "diplomatic" deals will be struck and if they don't play, they will suffer the consequences. The rest of the world (UN) will pi$$ and moan, but that will be about that. North Korea is about in the same boat.

 

This whole nuclear thing is about being the big kid on the block, more than any actual need to have the weapons themselves. Don't forget, there's also a big leap between thinking about having some, building some, and having some actually work as advertised.

 

As they already have viable and deliverable weapons, regime collapse in Pakistan would not be a pretty site.

[tennesseeboy]

Exactly...You've identified a problem Mickey, so what's the solution? I don't want to be a wisea*s, but you seem to be trolling into Tenny's territory.

 

The sooner the American public opens up their eyes and sees that we're in the early stages of WWIII, the better off we'll be. We may need a draft before this whole thing is over...only time will tell.

 

The sad truth is that if Iran is left to aquire nukes, we're in a big stevestojan sandwich. So it's basically either us or Isreal who takes action.

46350[/snapback]

 

hey..I agree with you. We are in the early stages of World War III. I think we probably disagree on whose fault it is though.

[Adam]

I remember watching a video of Nostradamus' predictions a few years back.....a bunch of natural disasters hit the US before WWIII starts......well, there have been a ridiculous number of hurricanes

[Rich in Ohio]

O.K. Rich, can you please explain how we will be able to invade and occupy Iran when we haven't got enough troops to control Iraq? If you say we simply bomb their facilities and don't actually invade, don't you think they've already thought of that? If we are able to bomb and destroy their nuclear facilities, how would they respond? Not enough terrorism in the region and the world yet? These aren't wisecrack questions, they are real questions so please respnd accordingly.

 

BTW, any military guys who have a reasonable answer please feel free to explain how we can occupy three countries at the same time, three countries that have hostile populations to us in a region that will probably blow up on us with the next incursion.

46561[/snapback]

 

I don't pretend to have the answer to this question. I am not an elitist who thinks he knows it all like many on this board. However, I do know that allowing insane people like those in Iran to have sucha device is not a good thing for the region or the world. After all thier main purpose for procuring such a WMD is to further thier goal of elminating our friends the jews from the face of the earth. They have no other purpose for deploying sucha weapon. The regime there is not trustworthy enough to have such a weapon.

 

My point to mick was that france and the UN will NEVER be able to solve this problem. They do not have the best interest of the world or the safety of Israel as a priority. After all they have allowed this to continue by the meaningless use of thier words, and empty threats.

 

That of course leaves the problem squarely in our lap. Right where all difficult world decisions end up. Now, having the option of GWB deal with this issue, our have kerry deal with it in his typical appeaseing way, I will take the side that has our best interest and safety as a first priority. It is no more complicated then that. We must find a way to disarm them, or keep them from developing these weapons at all. The time is now, and I hope that the plan is being formulated while we still have real men in the right positions.

[BadDad]

I don't pretend to have the answer to this question. I am not an elitist who thinks he knows it all like many on this board. However, I do know that allowing insane people like those in Iran to have sucha device is not a good thing for the region or the world. After all thier main purpose for procuring such a WMD is to further thier goal of elminating our friends the jews from the face of the earth. They have no other purpose for deploying sucha weapon. The regime there is not trustworthy enough to have such a weapon.

 

My point to mick was that france and the UN will NEVER be able to solve this problem. They do not have the best interest of the world or the safety of Israel as a priority. After all they have allowed this to continue by the meaningless use of thier words, and empty threats.

 

That of course leaves the problem squarely in our lap. Right where all difficult world decisions end up. Now, having the option of GWB deal with this issue, our have kerry deal with it in his typical appeaseing way, I will take the side that has our best interest and safety as a first priority. It is no more complicated then that. We must find a way to disarm them, or keep them from developing these weapons at all. The time is now, and I hope that the plan is being formulated while we still have real men in the right positions.

46684[/snapback]

 

 

The problem I have with your statement is that although you're sure Mr. Kerry is not the answer, your unequivical support for the current administration is not backed up with the answer to the question. I know it's difficult to answer and none of us have the answers that our leaders should have, so I understand your dilema. Unfortunately Mr. Bush has not given us his plan either.

[DC Tom]

I remember watching a video of Nostradamus' predictions a few years back.....a bunch of natural disasters hit the US before WWIII starts......well, there have been a ridiculous number of hurricanes

46665[/snapback]

 

...and Mt. Saint Helens is looking like it's going to explode again...

[Mickey]

I don't pretend to have the answer to this question. I am not an elitist who thinks he knows it all like many on this board. However, I do know that allowing insane people like those in Iran to have sucha device is not a good thing for the region or the world. After all thier main purpose for procuring such a WMD is to further thier goal of elminating our friends the jews from the face of the earth. They have no other purpose for deploying sucha weapon. The regime there is not trustworthy enough to have such a weapon.

 

My point to mick was that france and the UN will NEVER be able to solve this problem. They do not have the best interest of the world or the safety of Israel as a priority. After all they have allowed this to continue by the meaningless use of thier words, and empty threats.

 

That of course leaves the problem squarely in our lap. Right where all difficult world decisions end up. Now, having the option of GWB deal with this issue, our have kerry deal with it in his typical appeaseing way, I will take the side that has our best interest and safety as a first priority. It is no more complicated then that. We must find a way to disarm them, or keep them from developing these weapons at all. The time is now, and I hope that the plan is being formulated while we still have real men in the right positions.

46684[/snapback]

 

Tell me what evidence you have that the people of Iran are "insane"? If we are going to embark upon WW III based on that assessment, I think we need to review the evidence. I don't think the hostages from 1979 that were all released healthy and alive would be proof of that. I don't think their support of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the same group we allied with, would prove their insanity either. I also don't think that the long and terrible war they endured with Saddam, the one Iraq started and the one in which we supported Saddam would constitute proof of their insanity either. They remained neutral in the Gulf War so that would not be proof of insanity. They have remained neutral in the Afghanistan war after 9/11 so that wouldn't be proof of insanity. They have stayed out of the current Iraq war so again, that would not be proof of insanity either.

 

I am not trying to pick on you Richio, I just think you should be specific when you are talking about going to war with Iran because they are insane and therefore must be kept from getting nukes at all costs, even world war. Anti-American demonsrations wouldn't be enough in my book as they have had numerous demonstrations in favor of democracy. Actions would be the key. Especially since 9/11, I am not all that sure that there is a record of Iran being that dangerous.

[Mickey]

I'm more concerned about Pakistan myself right now. Iran will be made to understand the implications, "diplomatic" deals will be struck and if they don't play, they will suffer the consequences. The rest of the world (UN) will pi$$ and moan, but that will be about that. North Korea is about in the same boat.

 

This whole nuclear thing is about being the big kid on the block, more than any actual need to have the weapons themselves. Don't forget, there's also a big leap between thinking about having some, building some, and having some actually work as advertised.

 

As they already have viable and deliverable weapons, regime collapse in Pakistan would not be a pretty site.

46649[/snapback]

 

We agree on that. Pakistan is much more dangerous and much more volatile. Musharraf is on the thinnest ice there is.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

How many terrorist activities have been linked to Iran since 9/11?

 

A BOATLOAD of terrorist activities! Iran is one of THE largest providers of terrorist arms and money, and to say any less would be denying the truth.

 

What threat do they represent that justifies a world war that threatens our survival as much as theirs?  How hard will it be for UBL to sell his "crusade" argument to the rest of the muslim world if we invade Iran?

 

PLEASE. As long as we let Israel do whatever the hell it wants to do, the crusade will go on and on. Our link to them causes us so much trouble.

 

There is also a pretty healthy block of moderates in Iran.  In fact, there has been a long struggle between the clerical theocratic rulers and the moderates seeking more political freedom.

 

There is a healthy block of reformers in China, too, but of course they aren't extremist, AND they tried reform but alas it ended in disaster. Iran will NEVER become moderate, ever, unless the people who ACTUALLY control the government lose their power.

 

What is the basis for believing that Iran would be any less responsible with nukes than China and the old USSR has been? 

 

Because the ruling government is a pack of extremists who don't know the meaning of the word detente. All they know is war, revolution, and hatred.

 

If you are really worried about terrorists getting nukes, Pakistan is of more concern than Iran.

 

Pakistan doesn't begin their legislative sessions every day with "Death to America". BIG difference. We're already able to help Pakistan.. Iran NEVER wants our help.

[DC Tom]

But certainly they played a role in Iran continuing to pursue nukes and their apparent jugment that the risk they were taking in doing so was a risk they had to take.  Again, how could a diplomatic mission succeed when you have a President making public cracks about an axis of evil.  That is why you "speak softly."

46478[/snapback]

 

Iran's nuclear program dates back to the Shah. You're not saying they've pursued it for thirty years in anticipation of Bush's rhetoric, are you?

[Mickey]

Iran's nuclear program dates back to the Shah.  You're not saying they've pursued it for thirty years in anticipation of Bush's rhetoric, are you?

46804[/snapback]

 

No, that is why I used the phrase, "continuing to pursue" which refers to their actions since those statements were made. I don't agree that since they have tried to get nukes periodically since the Shah, it was hopeless from the git go so there was no harm in irresponsible rhetoric. Sorry Tom, I just think that bragging and threatening and posturing is not good diplomacy. Really, think of the world leaders in the past who have made such public threats along the lines of "We will crush you".

 

Remember, Bush himself said that he wants to see what can be done diplomatically first. Taking him at his word, that there is a chance for diplomacy to work, I think it foolish for him to say, "and if it doesn't work we will attack you". Now, any step back from the brink the Iranian's might want to take will appear to be a concession to a threat of force making it far less likely that they will step back. Therefore, Bush's statements make it more difficult to achieve his stated objective: a diplomatic solution that prevents Iran from obtaining nukes.

 

Of course, his concern for diplomacy could be feigned made just so that he looks like he is leaving war as a last resort. Even if that is the case, what does he gain with a threat like that? The only way that could possibly be of advantage is if one thinks that Iran will be frightened into giving up its nukes by a little sabre rattling.

 

Wouldn't they want to accelerate their plans in the face of such a threat, figuring that we will not invade a nuclear armed country?