| Author | Message | ||
     Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7102 Registered: 10-2001  |
I know most of you are better at playing Monday Morning QB, but how about addressing this? Shall we wait for the UN to solve the crisis? Do we attack now? Do we allow Israel to attack now??? Good news for anti war folks I guess. This could lead to war and we know how they love to rant and rave about that. VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday that Iran had enriched uranium and was in defiance of the U.N. Security Council. The finding that Iran was not in compliance, which was expected, was contained in a report drawn up by IAEA chief Mohamed Elbaradei. It also reflected a standoff between Iran and agency inspectors pursuing questions about possible attempts by Tehran to make nuclear arms. | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 841 Registered: 7-2003 |
Let's deal with Iran the same way our inspired President dealt with North Korea! Just ignore the problem, and hope it goes away. | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7103 Registered: 10-2001 |
wrong answer.. Not an option..Anyone else? | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 842 Registered: 7-2003 |
 | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4273 Registered: 12-2001  |
Regarding the military option: 1. What are the war aims? 2. Is the military option a sustainable policy for dealing with countries intent on building nuclear weapons? 3. Would exercising the military option leave us worse off than dealing with a nuclear Iran? In WW II, we ended up looking all the better for having opted to receive, as it were. Of course, Japan and Germany were so awful that had we struck first we would have looked pretty good. Unfortunately, in the case such as this, we may be better off pursuing defensive strategies with the understanding that we will conduct a fine demonstration of MAD in the event that somebody nukes us. For example, if a terrorist stole an Iranian made nuke and used it on us, then the next day, Iran would be about 50 million people smaller. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1695 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wait, are we supposed to believe the IAEA now? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1204 Registered: 10-2004  |
Of course its an option. Iran is a sovereign state. Who the hell is America to say what they can and what they cant do? The problem is that you think America is so powerful that we can bully any country we want. You are a dangerous, dangerous and incredibly short-sighted person. There are consequences to our actions and there can come a time when the battle is not 'over there' because of some manifest destiny policy that is proliferating through the administration of the moron in chief. I am not prepared for the rapture. I just as soon let diplomacy settle things as bombs. Hawks are idiots. | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 843 Registered: 7-2003 |
Wow . . . that was almost as much of an illogical rant as the one originally posted. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1205 Registered: 10-2004 |
they cant all be gems... | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4828 Registered: 5-2001 |
In 2003 the Iranians reached out to the administration through the Swiss embassy, offering talks to ratchet down the tension. The Bush response? Castigate the Swiss for being out of line. I'd feel better about all of this if these guys weren't just itching for war (the administration, that is). I don't believe for one minute that they're serious about a diplomatic solution to anything, when blowing something up is still an option. And considering what a clusterf*** Iraq has turned into, relative to what was predicted, can even Straw really take seriously any of their military plans and projections? | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7104 Registered: 10-2001 |
I'm not sure the MOL left realizes the historic nature of what just happened today..The IAEA has confirmed reports that Iran has enriched Uranium. This is the same nation that now calls for the destruction if Israel. This is an awful day in the history of the world. Of course, as I expected the answers so far from the MOL left are the ususal "should of, could of, would of" variety. You liberals once again making it clear that when it comes to making decisions, you can't. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 951 Registered: 2-2004 |
I know what I'll do. I'll continue to laugh at the libs and their philosophy of peace and love. Then when the Nuke goes off in those bastions of liberalism of NYC and LA, they will turn to us "hawks" for retribution. At least those who are still alive. It's an upleasant thought I know, but do you libs really think they will attack Des Moines or Birmingham? They are gunning for you and your plan is appeasement. Good luck. | ||
| GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 338 Registered: 5-2005  |
we should bomb them to dust. if not today, then tomorrow. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4829 Registered: 5-2001 |
southerner, I didn't know you were involved in target selection for the Iranians. Can you give us dates, too, so we can arrange to be out of town? | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 844 Registered: 7-2003 |
Boy, are you right about that. Bush, on the other hand, is very decisive. Like on North Korea. Very, very decisive. What the decision was, no one knows. Or like in Iraq. Be decisive! Forget the inconvenient facts. Just invade. Or the deficit. Forget control and restraint, just spend, spend, spend. Be decisive and spend! Make those decisions! Bomb and spend! | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7105 Registered: 10-2001 |
Chris, Again, should of could of would of..You should have run a candidate that could have won so your President would do as you want.. I'm asking for you and yours to think outside the box..Iran according to the IAEA is in complete violation. You on the other hand want to discuss the deficit. | ||
| GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 340 Registered: 5-2005 |
why think oustide the box? creativity is for liberal wusses. we don't need to be creative. just put all military options on the table, and when the time is right (sooner rather than later), use the big stick. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1208 Registered: 10-2004 |
MAD | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 847 Registered: 7-2003 |
Straw, we did run a candidate that could have won - his is John McCain. But your draft-dodging, big-spending, cowardly drunkard slimed him in the primaries. McCain is too much of a gentleman to respond in kind. Think outside the box? The box your man blundered into? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1210 Registered: 10-2004 |
Straw is all in favor of pot smoking, cocaine sniffing, alcoholics as leaders of the free world. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1577 Registered: 9-2004  |
Perhaps we could SEND Bush to uncover those Nukes eh?  | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1697 Registered: 5-2001 |
Since when did the warmongers start trusting what the IAEA says? | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3298 Registered: 9-2001  |
Straw, in all seriousness, what do you think we should do about it? | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3222 Registered: 5-2001  |
This is an awful day in the history of the world. Maybe you should change your name to "Darryl Hyperbole" | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7106 Registered: 10-2001 |
ESL, I believe that the more time we give Iran, the more dangerous the situation becomes. At this point, I want the UN to take the lead but I stress if the UN is unable to make headway within let's say 60-90 days, Iran's nuclear capacities must be destroyed and their government overthrown. I do not believe Israel can spearhead the attack though. It must be coordinated once again by a coalition of the willing, if the UN once again refuses to take action. Like I said, this has been a tragic day for the world. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5572 Registered: 8-2003 |
The decision on N. Korea was not to continue the "framework' that that master of diplomacy Jimmy Carter configured and Clinton followed. Paying a bribe to a tyrant who promises to forgo a nuclear program and then -- shazam -- Jong Il was really lying to us the whole time and admitted he had nukes when the Bush Administration called them on it. The left is a mass of contradictions on foreign policy, the only consistency being use whatever position you need to for political gain. Don't be 'unilateral', use our allies. Then don't use our allies and other countries on N. Korea -- sit down with them directly instead of a multi-national diplomacy. That diplomacy was used in Iran to stirring results, but now it's the Bush Admin should go unilateral there as well. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1700 Registered: 5-2001 |
The armchair generals are at it again. The left is a mass of contradictions on foreign policy... Do you think a single template fits every conceivable foreign policy situation? | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1701 Registered: 5-2001 |
For the record, Iran is allowed to enrich uranium, but only for energy. The problem is that they stopped cooperating with the IAEA, which verifies the type of use. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2965 Registered: 5-2004  |
The real question is, who would be willing, given the nuclear nature of the issue. Remember that a nuclear device does not have to be fissionable to be dangerous. A dirty bomb can be just as devastating the population... | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 957 Registered: 2-2004 |
tom, Most people know where the attack will come. I sure as heck hope they set off the nuke in a corn field in Iowa or a cotton field in Georgia, but unless you are totally clueless as to their agenda you know where they are gunning for. If you were a terrorist cell where you attack? Let's see, where have they already struck, NYC -twice and DC. As I've said earlier, good luck to you who live and work in those areas. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1942 Registered: 6-2003  |
What makes Israel worth protecting? It would be no loss to most of the world if the territory came under Arab control, any more than Hong Kong was a loss when it came under Chinese control. You might not agree with this if you have a personal interest in Israel, but most Americans don't. | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7107 Registered: 10-2001 |
Holy ignorance. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 5034 Registered: 9-2001  |
"What makes Israel worth protecting?" Better question wise guy, "What makes Iran worth saving?" | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 116 Registered: 4-2006 |
Hate to break it to you all, but Israel will not sit by for Americans to contemplate their navels on this. You don't tell a nation that includes Holocaust survivors, as Ahmadinejad did, that we are going to see you destroyed. The national psyche in Israel does not allow for this to be treated as verbiage. It also will not be treated as an intellectual exercize for pundits and foreign policy types as it is now in the U.S.. In Israel this is deadly serious. When the new recruits for the tank corps are sworn in they repeat their oath on Masada saying " Masada will not fall again." The paratroopers are sworn at the Western Wall, which recalls the destruction of the first and second temples and recalls the exile of the Jewish people and their suffering in the diaspora. The Israeli Air Force made a point, when given the opportunity by Polish authorities, of doing a fly-over of the Auschwitz death camp by Israeli airforce jets. Many Americans do not get the level of historic trauma and pride in their self-defense that the Israeli people have. As for the ignorant poster here who thinks there is no need for Israel, Israelis will tell you that this exactly why they have and need an army. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11351 Registered: 5-2001 |
Unless we have slipped the Israelis refuling equiptment, or they developed it themselves in secret, their F15s and F16s don't have the range to attack Iran. For them to put boots on the ground their is a logistical nightmare and I doubt if they could sustain a significant ground force there. I think we have a moral obligation to support Israel. However, do we have the obligation to go to war with Iran, on a preventative basis, for Israel? I really don't know. If we are going to be the protector of the world we are going to need to have a much larger military, especially infantry, than we do now. Will the US people support a draft and increased taxes to pay for doubling the size of the Army and Marines? | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7108 Registered: 10-2001 |
excellent post, factvsfiction..excellent post. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 565 Registered: 8-2003 |
I think Ahmedinijad is playing to the mullah gallery and other radical Iranians when he uttered those statements because he knows well that Iran would cease to exist if he were to order a nuclear attack against Israel or any other nation for that matter. If you'll remember the US and Europe thought that India and Pak would nuke each other in 1998 soon after both nations tested nuclear devices and that they were not capable of practising nuclear deterrence. Clinton called South Asia the most dangerous place on earth. Pak had to go nuclear because it knew that it stood no chance against India in a conventional war. Despite Kashmir being a thorn in the relations between the two nations, war is something that they will not resort to given the language of MAD that both nations understand so well now. Some folks on this thread may not buy this argument but I think Iran too will learn the language of MAD. It's interesting to note that the US and Europe are taking the dilpomatic path seriously, something they should have done with Iraq which did not possess any nuclear weapons. In the end the world will have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran and a nuclear Iran will have to learn to be a responsible nuclear power. Any attack against Iran at this time will only exacerbate an already volatile situation, one that will see Sunnis and Shias come together in the Arab and Muslim world in opposition to the West and then we'll truly have a "war of civilizations" that Huntington wrote about a few years ago. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1217 Registered: 10-2004 |
I will say it again Hawks are idiots. There is no reason for war with Iran, Iraq nor any middle eastern country. America is not under attack. There is plenty of hyperbole, insults, threats and other diplomatic posturing being tossed around all in the name of keeping Iran an non nuclear power. its all ridiculous. As Rastro pointed out a dirty bomb does not have to be enriched and that is where we are vulnerable, not from a nuclear missile or some other regular military weapon. What you are complaining about is that another country, especially one that we can not control, is gaining a WMD. Well any country that attacks America with a nuke can fully expect to be blown to smithereens. Every country knows this. Iran is not stupid, just ideologically and religiously totally backwards. They will never attack America, but they will also not allow themselves to be threatened by us. They have already proven that they can stand up to America during the hostage crisis. They are no weak sister like Iraq all really all the rest of the middle eastern countries. They have 70 million people and large supplies of natural resources. Iran Atlas The USA is not prepared or I should say not well enough prepared to go to war with Iran. It would surely bankrupt our treasury. Israel is not threatened by a nuclear Iran. If Iran nuked Israel - also a place a historical significance to them - then Israel would surely counterstrike. MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction Thinking war with Iran is makes zero sense. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 958 Registered: 2-2004 |
BobK, Have they gotten to you? What is this talk of a draft you mentioned. If we need a bigger military, then raise the benefits, ie salary. This is what all businesses do when they are looking to attract more people. The military is no different. We could easily increase our military by simply adding more incentive to join. Why do people automatically assume the only way to increase the military is a draft. It tells me they are clueless. Hoops "They will never attack America". I'll be thinking of you and your pacifist attitude when there is a mushroom cloud over Manhattan. That statement is a perfect example of why the libs are not in power. No matter how poorly Bush is percieved I guarantee middle America won't vote Democrat even if you intelligent northeasterners feed each other the same bull everyday. It won't happen. And deep down you know I'm right and it just eats at many of you. Now, I fully expect the usual libs on this board to repeat for the thousandth time why they will win. I love reading you guys trying to convince yourself of something you know won't happen. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4830 Registered: 5-2001 |
Why would you think Iran would attack the U.S.? Their leaders may be islamic fundamentalists, but there's no reason to believe they're insane. They're not living in caves, after all, and you don't see any members of the Iranian parliament blowing themselves up in shopping malls. |
