So, this Iran shit, are we gonna get it on or what?

Abookamongstthemany

Bu2 wrote:

http://www.dscc.org/news/latest/20060119_hillary/

Now that's a surprise! hehe

Abookamongstthemany

Is it a surprise to anyone that all the conventional Rs and Ds are pro aggression? Let's quit pretending there's really much of a difference between the two.

JD Sal

deadmosquito wrote:

why should israel have nukes and not iran? what makes israel so special?

Is Israel threatening to wipe other countries off the map? They have nukes to deter all of the hostile countries in the region that would like to see them eliminated.

Alex_Coe

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Is it a surprise to anyone that all the conventional Rs and Ds are pro aggression? Let's quit pretending there's really much of a difference between the two.

Seconded.

El_Kabong

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Is it a surprise to anyone that all the conventional Rs and Ds are pro aggression? Let's quit pretending there's really much of a difference between the two.

ah, quite your whining! how dare you discuss actual stances and expose the 2 party system we have as a complete sham!!! we shouldn't be focusing on how it's basically the same thing or issues, rather how personable and electable the candidate is so we can live in this illusion that it will matter much in the end but at least you get bragging rights for 4 years, right?

why keep supporting the cycle?

El_Kabong

searchlightsoul wrote:

Yeah good idea America, kick yourself in the balls a second time. Make more friends in the Arab world with air strikes- they have achieved so much in Iraq. WTF is wrong with your mindset that you love war so much?

war makes a lot of money for some...halliburton alone went from $10 a share when they were pushing for war to mid 70's-80...think of how much all those bombs and new weapons cost

Vedd Hedd

I wonder how much of this wouldnt even matter if we both had more renewable energy sources. Wind, Solar, Electric.

If Iran had safe renewable energy, and we had safe renewable energy, (meaning less foreign oil from SA, et al.) would there even be conflict? Probably, but who knows.

Same for every nation. Isnt it all about energy/money?

OutOfBreath

JD Sal wrote:

Is Israel threatening to wipe other countries off the map? They have nukes to deter all of the hostile countries in the region that would like to see them eliminated.

Can't imagine why Iran might want some.... :rolleyes:

Peace
Dan

soulsinging

El_Kabong wrote:

ah, quite your whining! how dare you discuss actual stances and expose the 2 party system we have as a complete sham!!! we shouldn't be focusing on how it's basically the same thing or issues, rather how personable and electable the candidate is so we can live in this illusion that it will matter much in the end but at least you get bragging rights for 4 years, right?

why keep supporting the cycle?

oh quit your nonsense. if you cant see the differences between the parties you're blind. the dems are baby-killers and jesus endorses the republicans... duh!

catefrances

searchlightsoul wrote:

Yeah good idea America, kick yourself in the balls a second time. Make more friends in the Arab world with air strikes- they have achieved so much in Iraq. WTF is wrong with your mindset that you love war so much?

iranians are persians, not arabs.

deadmosquito

JD Sal wrote:

Is Israel threatening to wipe other countries off the map? They have nukes to deter all of the hostile countries in the region that would like to see them eliminated.

but why should they have them in the first place? sure, israel and the muslim world dont' get along, but if they have nuclear capabilities, why shouldn't other nations in the region? i don't understand why israel gets to be the exception. israel is a "hostile" country to the muslim nations in the area, so shouldn't they be able to defend themselves against a possible attack from israel? who decides these things?

i'm not necessarily arguing things that i believe, but i think some of these questions are important ones.

gossardstradlin

catefrances wrote:

iranians are persians, not arabs.

Nice correction.

OOOOHHHHHH, a war on three fronts!!!!!!!!! Gooodeeee!!!!!! Do I hear a four? A five???

Well since we are bogged down in one (Iraq), and haven't finished the job in another (Afghanistan), why not start a third? Probably makes logical sense to the current administration.

If it is deemed by the world community that Iran is an imminent threat to Israel, any action taken must be from a multi-national coalition. Any unilateral action by the U.S. would result in more disaster IMO.

Milhouse VanHouten

El_Kabong wrote:

Barack Obama does!



"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0409250111sep25,1,6128171.story?coll=chi-elections-utl&ctrack=1&cset=true

You're mischaracterizing what Obama said, and you're distorting the quote and excerpt from the Trib story. Do you really think he wants to launch missile strikes against Iran? That he hopes to do so if elected president? You really think that starting another war in the Middle East is an idea he relishes?

I'm admittedly biased, but my take on the statement is this: Obama is rhetorically asking "What do we do if economic sanctions, UN resolutions, international diplomacy etc. fail to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons? At what point are we forced to examine military options?" He's not actively endorsing missile strikes, but he's not ruling them out, either. He also recognizes the fact that strikes against Iran could (definitely would) "further strain relations between the U.S. and Arab world."

To me, it's a pretty realistic take on the situation. It's more honest to acknowledge that military actions are part of the discussion than to ignore the topic completely.

Abookamongstthemany

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

You're mischaracterizing what Obama said, and you're distorting the quote and excerpt from the Trib story. Do you really think he wants to launch missile strikes against Iran? That he hopes to do so if elected president? You really think that starting another war in the Middle East is an idea he relishes?

I'm admittedly biased, but my take on the statement is this: Obama is rhetorically asking "What do we do if economic sanctions, UN resolutions, international diplomacy etc. fail to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons? At what point are we forced to examine military options?" He's not actively endorsing missile strikes, but he's not ruling them out, either. He also recognizes the fact that strikes against Iran could (definitely would) "further strain relations between the U.S. and Arab world."

To me, it's a pretty realistic take on the situation. It's more honest to acknowledge that military actions are part of the discussion than to ignore the topic completely.

If you'd read the links from Kucinich and Ron Paul, you'd see how it doesn't have to be an option but it's made to look like it, anyway...just like they made the case for Iraq in 2002. I'm not supporting any candidate who will consider making the same power plays based on hyped up intell and fear mongering. I've had enough of that these last few years, thank you very much. I guess if Obama is elected and we do infact engage in military actions with Iran, you guys (the same people who were against Iraq, but of course, that was Bush's idea not the charismatic Obama's) will be behind it because he's your guy, right? It's not like we didn't warn you.

El_Kabong

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

You're mischaracterizing what Obama said, and you're distorting the quote and excerpt from the Trib story.

no, i'm not, i simply used his own words

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

Do you really think he wants to launch missile strikes against Iran? That he hopes to do so if elected president? You really think that starting another war in the Middle East is an idea he relishes?

i never said he hopes to or he relishes it or anything like that...just that he would do it, plz don't distort what i said

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I'm admittedly biased, but my take on the statement is this: Obama is rhetorically asking "What do we do if economic sanctions, UN resolutions, international diplomacy etc. fail to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons? At what point are we forced to examine military options?" He's not actively endorsing missile strikes, but he's not ruling them out, either. He also recognizes the fact that strikes against Iran could (definitely would) "further strain relations between the U.S. and Arab world."

he's not ruling them out, he's saying he thinks it will happen

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

To me, it's a pretty realistic take on the situation. It's more honest to acknowledge that military actions are part of the discussion than to ignore the topic completely.

what did he say?
"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."


if it comes to iran having nukes he would attack iran, tho he doesn't "hope" that it happens he said he'd be "surprised" if it didn't happen!

that doesn't seem like it's open for discussion, that seems like his mind is made up: if iran tries to make a nuke we should attack...

do you think they are a threat? do you think military action is a smart move?

Milhouse VanHouten

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

If you'd read the links from Kucinich and Ron Paul, you'd see how it doesn't have to be an option but it's made to look like it, anyway...just like they made the case for Iraq in 2002. I'm not supporting any candidate who will consider making the same power plays based on hyped up intell and fear mongering. I've had enough of that these last few years, thank you very much. I guess if Obama is elected and we do infact engage in military actions with Iran, you guys (the same people who were against Iraq, but of course, that was Bush's idea not the charismatic Obama's) will be behind it because he's your guy, right? It's not like we didn't warn you.

The main difference between Iraq and Iran is this: Iraq did not have stockpiles of WMD or a viable WMD development program. On the other hand, Iran has admitted to pursuing nuclear capability, but they claim it's only for to generate electricity. Of course, President Ahmadinejad has also made remarks that would lead one to believe that he's not a big fan of the state of Israel, and many inside and outside the United States think that Iran is pursuing the capability to produce nuclear weapons, so there are differences between the two situations. I also see substantial differences between the ideologically driven Bush Push into Iraq and the statements that Senator Obama has made about the possibility of military actions in Iran.

Abookamongstthemany

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

The main difference between Iraq and Iran is this: Iraq did not have stockpiles of WMD or a viable WMD development program. On the other hand, Iran has admitted to pursuing nuclear capability, but they claim it's only for to generate electricity. Of course, President Ahmadinejad has also made remarks that would lead one to believe that he's not a big fan of the state of Israel, and many inside and outside the United States think that Iran is pursuing the capability to produce nuclear weapons, so there are differences between the two situations. I also see substantial differences between the ideologically driven Bush Push into Iraq and the statements that Senator Obama has made about the possibility of military actions in Iran.

So you would support a military strike on Iran? I haven't noticed your support for this kind of force in the Iran threads. I guess I had you pegged differently. I hear the war drums beating again, only this time with support from those who I would have least expected it from. If it's not right for Bush to be pushing for war with Iran, it's just as wrong to accept these from Obama, as well. I can't believe the things you guys are justifying in order to make excuses for your 'guy'. It just seems you guys would be opposing the same proposals if they came from Bush and that, my friend, is bullshit!

Milhouse VanHouten

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

So you would support a military strike on Iran? I haven't noticed your support for this kind of force in the Iran threads. I guess I had you pegged differently. I hear the war drums beating again, only this time with support from those who I would have least expected it from. If it's not right for Bush to be pushing for war with Iran, it's just as wrong to accept these from Obama, as well. I can't believe the things you guys are justifying in order to make excuses for your 'guy'. It just seems you guys would be opposing the same proposals if they came from Bush and that, my friend, is bullshit!

In the interest of efficiency, this is kind of a joint response to your post and El Kabong's.

I don't recall ever taking a position either way on Bush attacking Iran. For the record, I don't support military actions against Iran, but I'm also worried because it seems that Iran is a more immediate concern because they have admitted to working to develop nuclear technology.

Sorry to parse words, but Obama never said "he would attack Iran". He said that his instinct would be to err on the side of caution if Iran developed a nuclear weapons program.

I do think that any nation possessing nuclear weapons is "a threat", and that includes Iran, the United States, and Israel, for that matter. I am completely against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but I really have no answers as to what to do about dealing with a nuclear Iran. I know that it's hypocritical for us to keep our stockpiles and fail to condemn Israel's nuclear program, but none of that changes the fact that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the entire Middle East, not just Israel, and I'm not sure that any president or presidential candidate would ever completely rule out the use of force in dealing with Iran. I have no idea how to deal with the situation, but then again, I'm not running for president, either.

El_Kabong

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

In the interest of efficiency, this is kind of a joint response to your post and El Kabong's.

I don't recall ever taking a position either way on Bush attacking Iran. For the record, I don't support military actions against Iran, but I'm also worried because it seems that Iran is a more immediate concern because they have admitted to working to develop nuclear technology.

Sorry to parse words, but Obama never said "he would attack Iran". He said that his instinct would be to err on the side of caution if Iran developed a nuclear weapons program.

I do think that any nation possessing nuclear weapons is "a threat", and that includes Iran, the United States, and Israel, for that matter. I am completely against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but I really have no answers as to what to do about dealing with a nuclear Iran. I know that it's hypocritical for us to keep our stockpiles and fail to condemn Israel's nuclear program, but none of that changes the fact that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the entire Middle East, not just Israel, and I'm not sure that any president or presidential candidate would ever completely rule out the use of force in dealing with Iran. I have no idea how to deal with the situation, but then again, I'm not running for president, either.

are they even developing them? again, the corporate politicians say yes, the ppl who look into such things...? ehhhh, not so much

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167304.stm

'The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons'

so Ahmadinejad is a nutjob who likes the spotlight like many others...how much power does he actually have? the reality is he is pretty much just a spokesperson who weilds virtually NO power at all...and those who actually have the power have said they do not like his showboating.

it's not just israel...pakistan doesn't allow iaea inspections, they sold technology to some shady ppl, they have close ties to terrorism...yet our policy towards them is 'meh, do whatever you want, build as much as you feel like'

lucylespian

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

. I am completely against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but I really have no answers as to what to do about dealing with a nuclear Iran.

I don't either, but I don think that starting to harrass Iran just puts them into a defensive position where they will start talking aggressively to make teh US BAck off. Tihs is what happenes with SAddam. There was no reason no to let weapons inspectors in, I mean it turned out he had nothing to hide, but he was just protecting his pride.
It is NEVER smart to paint people in to a corner, and I just get the impression that even talking about military action is the thing which is most likely to lead to a need for it.
Why don't we try increasing econmoic ties, rather than reducing them ?? People rarely attack their economic friends, but they will attack if they feel defensive, or if they think they have nothing to lose.
I have met plenty of Iranians and intrinsically, they are wonderful people. They have a long history of culture and civilization, and though radical Islam scares me as much as the next guy, they quite might consider the US to be a wet behind teh ewasr upstart when it comes to world domination.