|
Okay seriously, are we going to war with Iran yet?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
I won't claim these ideas as they were taken from a coupla blogs recently. I know this has been discussed before, but it seems the drum is slowly but surely starting to beat a little louder. I'll save my comments for this until the end of the posts.
From ThinkProgress:
| quote: | Joseph Cirincione is a respected non-proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment, one who admits he “was the last remaining person in Washington who believed President George W. Bush when he said that he was committed to a diplomatic solution.” Yet, in a new column for Foreign Policy magazine, he says he now believes that senior U.S. officials have already made up their minds to attack Iran:
| quote: | | For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran. … What I previously dismissed as posturing, I now believe may be a coordinated campaign to prepare for a military strike on Iran. |
The ramifications of such an attack could be disastrous. At a minimum, it would likely “rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq.” But most importantly, a military strike would “almost certainly speed…up” Iran’s nuclear weapons development by sparking a “crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years.”
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pu...g=zgp&proj=znpp
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/...p?story_id=3416
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/04/iran-strike/ |
Now we could assume that to be a bit of an unsupported opinion, and we could dispose of it being a blog. However I do tend to find more often than not the Carnegie Institute being a pretty good source of info. when I run across them every now and then.
Let's also do a bit of a historical comparison too:
| quote: |
| quote: | Donald Rumsfeld, September 19, 2002:
"There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, just to name a few -- but no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches...19-secdef2.html |
versus:
| quote: | Hans Blix, April 3, 2006:
(AP) Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said Monday that Iran is a least five years away from developing a nuclear bomb, leaving time to peacefully negotiate a settlement. [...]
"We have time on our side in this case. Iran can't have a bomb ready in the next five years," Blix was quoted as saying.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006...D8GOKVEO0.shtml |
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/3/143621/3020 |
We also have news that Britain is discussing what kind of damage it would do should Bush attack Iran:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...xportaltop.html
Needless to say, it wouldn't be pretty, nor would it help much in terms of stabilizing the Middle East in any manner.
And in terms of any help on Iranian sanctions, Russia and China told Condi to take a hike:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/w...r=1&oref=slogin
Which perhaps wasn't that unexpected.
And Iran, not too surprisingly, has given us some threats of their own:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12114512/
Now we may blow them off in the same manner as we blew off Saddam's veiled threats, but I do think that might be a fairly significant mistake:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_war...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
So here's my thoughts on the matter:
Part of me wants to say, "Are you being ing serious here George?", while the other part of me wants to acknowledge that Iran must not be allowed "nukular" capability. With a holocaust denier in power that refuses to acknowledge Israel, let alone demonstrate his hatred for the U.S. and our allies at every opportunity is not the kinda guy I would want with a 50 kiloton bomb at his fingertip. I think we have to admit a threat of Iran but must also put that threat in full context. What is that context?:
1. Our ing debacle in Iraq
2. The rest of the world save Britain (whom their public doesn't support Blair's Iraq actions in the first place) rightfully distrusting us as a consequence to our past actions and promises on Iraq (anyone seen those WMD anywhere yet?).
3. Despite the Right's best efforts to keep the spin alive on how swell invading Iraq has been to the rest of the world on terrorism, unfortunately the reality is slowly creeping into the rest of Americans that invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 did not do much to make us a whole lot safer, and in fact created a terrorist breeding ground (including our favorite #1 enemy, al Qaeda).
4. Anyone care to explain why we're not on the doorstep of bin Laden yet, rather than trying to destroy and destabilize yet another Middle East country?
5. With our military being bogged down in Iraq, how the hell do we honestly expect to attack Iran?
Unless, of course, we "cut and run"? Iran is just next door, ya know.
6. Can the American people really muster another war, let alone a 3rd war in 5 years? With Bush's support on Iraq tanking fast, I hardly think that is the case, let alone my point #7:
7. Is this supposed to somehow help boost the numbers for the GOP who by all analyist accounts are going to lose seats in the House and Senate this election year?
That last point may actually be part of the strategy, as crazy as it sounds. I could foresee this either being a shot in the arm for Republicans, or a major, major, major ing blow to the gut. In either case, I'd say it's probably a long shot to launch a war in this election year, but it's hard to predict anything with these neocons in the White House. As long of a shot as this may seem, I still wouldn't put it past them.
So in conclusion, there seems to be a lot of similarities to the war drums of pre-Iraq invasion here, and the pattern is all too similar to simply handwave it off. Still, I think everyone agrees that Iran having nukes isn't a very rosy thought at all. It's a helluva time for Bush to have little credibility overseas as well as in our own borders. I think it would do him some good to try his best to rebuild that international credibility and get as much support as possible before going on another fun-packed adventure into the Middle East.
It would be interesting to see Seymour Hersh's prediction come to fruition:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | | I'll save my comments for this until the end of the posts. |
this is the big time...for the big boys...on the the biggest stage of all. maybe you should hold your comments until after we get this all sorted out. thanx for playing:D |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
The States are already neck deep in the e; they'd have problems unless they had some actual world support for that one...
They'd best let Iran bury themselves rather than trying to drum up a case.
I'd like to think the World isn't dumb enough to let dictators run their mouth off and push our buttons.
Historically the World isn't (ie.Hitler) but let's hope we all actually learned something from that debacle... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
this is the big time...for the big boys...on the the biggest stage of all. maybe you should hold your comments until after we get this all sorted out. thanx for playing:D |
No, no, thank you. You continue to shed some terrific light on the subject on such international issues. Quite enlightening, as always.
Yes, those "Big Boys" have sure added quite a bit to the conversation, including yourself. Those "Big Boys" have really done quite a number with Iraq, including finding all those darn WMD, finding those lovely al Qaeda connections all over the place, diminishing the al Qaeda terrorist numbers rather than create a terrorist haven in Iraq, quell the insurgency and demonstrate with ample evidence how they are in their "last throes", finding Osama bin Laden, establish a true democracy rather than an Islamic fundamentalist Shiite regime that has the wink and nod of Iran itself, funding the Iraq war through their oil production entirely rather than through the American tax payers just like Rummy predicted, fully protect our men and women fighting over their with proper body armour rather than have their loved ones hold ing bake sales to buy the armour for them, have enough troops to fully secure explosives like al Qa qua or the Syrian borders....
yes, those "Big Boys" like yourself sure add quite a bit to this discourse.
And I do sincerely appreciate your advice about holding my commentary on the matter. Perhaps that's what we should all do - we should never speak our minds on any subject matter, especially when it comes to national security. Because we should all be exactly like you, Q, and just trust everything the "Big Boys" say. Afterall, I do believe it was you who admitted that there is not one thing you disagree with our President. We should always trust those "Big Boys" at any and all costs. They know what's best for us puny little citizens at all times, and we should never question their authority, ever.
Thanks again for setting me straight. For a quick second there, I went slightly astray from the Freeperville Kool-Aid bin. Rest assured, I'll stay away from that strange, dark, ominous world known as the Reality-Based Community from now on. ;) |
|
|
| Q5echo |
"Question their authority"? we should be so lucky for you just to do that here. but noooo. you gotta spew second-guessing, armchair-quarterbacking, revisionist vitriolic hindsight vaguely diguised as nothing more than Dean/Pelosi talking points in the middle of something so big and so important for this generation to get a grasp of, that in the end, when your all said and done, you've done nothing but hurt the ones that have sacrificed the most to make countries like Iran and it's citizens think "what if?"
| quote: | Originally said by George Bush
I never said this was going to be easy. |
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
"Question their authority"? we should be so lucky for you just to do that here. but noooo. you gotta spew second-guessing, armchair-quarterbacking, revisionist vitriolic hindsight vaguely diguised as nothing more than Dean/Pelosi talking points in the middle of something so big and so important for this generation to get a grasp of, that in the end, when your all said and done, |
Oh give it a ing rest, douchebag. Do you honestly have anything worthwhile to add to the conversation at all? I couldn't even ing understand your dip statement here. I tell ya what, dip - if these are mere "vitriolic" "Dean/Pelosi" talking points, rather than supported statements, then let's go ahead and discuss them in detail.
I know, it's a strange, strange road that you and I have seemingly never been down before. But since you seemingly continue to throw out cute little statements like these, and since we seemingly NEVER ever talk about these things in detail (or do we? Gosh, I just can't remember anymore...), I guess it would be interesting for us all to actually discuss these "talking points" as if we've never ventured down this lovely path before.
Ready, champ?
| quote: | | you've done nothing but hurt the ones that have sacrificed the most just to make countries like Iran and it's citizens think "what if?" |
Jesus that's a pathetic excuse of a refutation. I guess I could easily throw back such a simplistic, elementary, irrational thought and state that actions such as your own to support such a war in Iraq with no thought of the ****** who actually attacked us, supporting an AWOL president and 5-deferrment VP at any and all costs who were going to war, WMD and al Qaeda evidence be damned despite telling the public otherwise (hence, a ing lie), having no ing clue nor care about the consequences of invading a Middle East country and effectively destabilizing the entire region as a consequence, having the American taxpayer fund the bill rather than their pre-conceived notion of Iraqi oil funding the bill, drastically underestimating the insurgency and enemy as a whole,
all the while spend and borrow money worse than any Democratic president (or any modern-era president for that matter), to ensure there is a lovely tax on every ing baby being born who has to pay back the debt of this idiot of an Administration and GOP who have no clue how to balance a checkbook.
Yes, I could throw back something like that in a childish manner like you, but I'll try and save the childishness for your own remarks...
You gonna actually have a ing debate with me for once in your ing life, Q, or shall we continue with pathetic unsupported rants? I'm weary as trying to sort through your simple-minded, unsupported Bush apologist Limbaugh ass-licking commentary with some kind of hope that you might actually have some substance behind your arguments.
This thread is about Iran. You have some commentary about the subject, then ing do us all the gracious favor and discuss the topic at hand. Otherwise get the out of this thread, dear sir. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
If they attack Iran(even though they dont have the balls or the money)it will be the end of the Bush era.
Perhaps attacking Iran will finally teach these s a big lesson.This war will be a huge loss for the U.S. again and will create even bigger problems in Iraq and will distabilize the region to the max. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
No, no, thank you. You continue to shed some terrific light on the subject on such international issues. Quite enlightening, as always.
Yes, those "Big Boys" have sure added quite a bit to the conversation, including yourself. Those "Big Boys" have really done quite a number with Iraq, including finding all those darn WMD, finding those lovely al Qaeda connections all over the place, diminishing the al Qaeda terrorist numbers rather than create a terrorist haven in Iraq, quell the insurgency and demonstrate with ample evidence how they are in their "last throes", finding Osama bin Laden, establish a true democracy rather than an Islamic fundamentalist Shiite regime that has the wink and nod of Iran itself, funding the Iraq war through their oil production entirely rather than through the American tax payers just like Rummy predicted, fully protect our men and women fighting over their with proper body armour rather than have their loved ones hold ing bake sales to buy the armour for them, have enough troops to fully secure explosives like al Qa qua or the Syrian borders....
yes, those "Big Boys" like yourself sure add quite a bit to this discourse.
And I do sincerely appreciate your advice about holding my commentary on the matter. Perhaps that's what we should all do - we should never speak our minds on any subject matter, especially when it comes to national security. Because we should all be exactly like you, Q, and just trust everything the "Big Boys" say. Afterall, I do believe it was you who admitted that there is not one thing you disagree with our President. We should always trust those "Big Boys" at any and all costs. They know what's best for us puny little citizens at all times, and we should never question their authority, ever.
Thanks again for setting me straight. For a quick second there, I went slightly astray from the Freeperville Kool-Aid bin. Rest assured, I'll stay away from that strange, dark, ominous world known as the Reality-Based Community from now on. ;) |
Well you at least have the left-wing talking points down pat.
Lets not talk as if everything is a forgone conclusion on those points however.
They're still finding documents that show what kind of connections the Saddam regime had (ie. the Russians?! and that they DID have connections to al Qaeda. Osama is lucky to buy a bowl of rice and make it out from under his rock, the terrorists were there to begin with except the targets have come to them, the WMDs where there but were moved thanks to Georges Sada stepping up and the civil war, well hell anybody could have guessed that after the power vaccuum was created with Saddam's exit.
Which ever way we look at the situation, it's FUBAR from Bush's original intent, but I find it interesting that because everything wasn't done in 5 months that everyone's writting the whole situation off...:conf: |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
If they attack Iran(even though they dont have the balls or the money)it will be the end of the Bush era.
Perhaps attacking Iran will finally teach these s a big lesson.This war will be a huge loss for the U.S. again and will create even bigger problems in Iraq and will distabilize the region to the max. |
By s you mean Americans??
Hey I hate to tell you, but if we, the s, wanted to. IRAN would become a ing glass table top. If we wanted to. We could do it with out losing one trooper. And FYI the end of the Bush era is ending in a few years so shut the hell up already. What are you going to do when Bush leaves office?? Start complaining that Canada won't show your favorite Teletubbies epeisode??
Be real little kid, not all American's support Bush and his stupid policies, but even the ones that don't support Bush, know that we could destroy Iran in a blink of a camel's eyelash, so FOAD youlittle kid! |
|
|
| Lemonad |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
By s you mean Americans??
Hey I hate to tell you, but if we, the s, wanted to. IRAN would become a ing glass table top. If we wanted to. We could do it with out losing one trooper. And FYI the end of the Bush era is ending in a few years so shut the hell up already. What are you going to do when Bush leaves office?? Start complaining that Canada won't show your favorite Teletubbies epeisode??
Be real little kid, not all American's support Bush and his stupid policies, but even the ones that don't support Bush, know that we could destroy Iran in a blink of a camel's eyelash, so FOAD youlittle kid! |
Your just talking out of your ass just like Bush did, i'm guessing if he wanted to, he could have found the WMD, if he wanted to, he could have found bin laden. You hate to tell us? well ladeedaa Mr. dimwit.
Sheez get over yourselves and your notion that America is invincible and understand the big picture. I don't know how much you want to understand this situation but you must understand that Iran is not a Iraq. Iran is a true power when it comes to brains but of course your going to deny it and throw me a useless insult.
If Iran was given the money and was given the freedom, they could make weapons US would only dream of, and i'm not trying to make Iran look good but thats how it is, you just simply have to understand how smart many Iranians are.. and don't base them on their Islamic beliefs.
The bigger blind picture is that US wants control over most middle east sectors but they can't do it with Iran in the picture. I can tell you one thing, i don't think US is concerned with one country in the middle east, except Iran just for the fact it knows they can truly fight "if they wanted to".
Get off your high horse and look at the real picture.. oh and i await your offence and some silly comment. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
By s you mean Americans?? |
I mean the s that are in the office and ones that voted for those s.
| quote: | | Hey I hate to tell you, but if we, the s, wanted to. IRAN would become a ing glass table top. If we wanted to. We could do it with out losing one trooper. |
They "can" attack but they WONT and thats the beauty of all this because there is so much at risk here for them
| quote: | | And FYI the end of the Bush era is ending in a few years so shut the hell up already. |
and I hope he in rottens in hell after he leaves.
| quote: | | What are you going to do when Bush leaves office?? |
celebrate :)
| quote: | | Be real little kid, not all American's support Bush and his stupid policies, but even the ones that don't support Bush, know that we could destroy Iran in a blink of a camel's eyelash, so FOAD youlittle kid! |
lol it is sooo funny because this is exactly what they said about Iraq right before the invasion and then they had that monkey to come out and say "Mission Accomplished" :haha:
and look where they are now,soldiers heads getting blown up daily and your money going down the ter.;) |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | | you've done nothing but hurt the ones that have sacrificed the most to make countries like Iran and it's citizens think "what if?" |
i misstated. i took the word "just" out. maybe it makes a little more sense.
anyway, to end this between you and i. because, your last post has more less proven a point in my second post.
you...
have now replaced her...
who replaced him...
as the new poster child for the unhinged liberal. |
|
|
|
|
