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.
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.
"She knows there is no success like failure
And that failure's no success at all."
"Don't ya think its sometimes wise not to grow up."
"Cause life ain't nothing but a good groove
A good mixed tape to put you in the right mood."
"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.
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.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
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.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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
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
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?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
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.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
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!
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
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
'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'
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
. 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.
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.
excellent post!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
My take... No. Not even George W. Bush is that stupid... or Dick Cheney that arrogant to take us into Iran.
We have lost any bargaining position we had regarding Iran. We misplayed Iraq in so poorly.... that we have probably strenghtened Iran's (and Syria's) hand. We have let the oportunity for Iran and Syria to broker a peace deal in Iraq... how's that for irony? I am hoping that Iran and Syria screw that deal up worse than we did to at least get us back to a level field in the region.
Iraq right now in a national civil war... to allow it to spread to a regional civil war between Sunnis (in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan) and Shi'ites (Iran and Iraq) would have terrible immeidate consequences that will last for a long, long time.
We are at least opening a dialogue with Iran and Syria (something the experience of James Baker suggested and George W. Bush initially rejected). I am glad George has 'flip-flopped' on this because like it or not, he has painted us into this corner and now we HAVE to deal with Iran (and Syria) on their terms, not ours. Failure to do so would possibly allow Iran to be the one to bring stability to Iraq.
A complete bizarro outcome that is a possible scenario... Iranian troops invited in by the Shi'ite lead Iraqi government... resulting in U.S. and Iranian troops in a 'coalition' to stabilize Baghdad. If the Iraqis initiate this... how does America react? What else can we do? Withdraw and leave it all to Iranian troops? Train Iranian troops in U.S. military tactics.. with U.S. taxpayer dollars? Not probable... but, definately a possibility in that strange part of the world. Stranger shit has happened... and in this royal fuck up of all fuck ups... anything is possible.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
down a little is a short video w/ a retired air force colonel who says some say we already in iran, the house committee on emerging threats called on state and defense departments to testify if this were true or not....the officials didn't show up
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
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.
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.
And that failure's no success at all."
"Don't ya think its sometimes wise not to grow up."
"Cause life ain't nothing but a good groove
A good mixed tape to put you in the right mood."
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.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
no, i'm not, i simply used his own words
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
he's not ruling them out, he's saying he thinks it will happen
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?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
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!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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'
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
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.
excellent post!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
We have lost any bargaining position we had regarding Iran. We misplayed Iraq in so poorly.... that we have probably strenghtened Iran's (and Syria's) hand. We have let the oportunity for Iran and Syria to broker a peace deal in Iraq... how's that for irony? I am hoping that Iran and Syria screw that deal up worse than we did to at least get us back to a level field in the region.
Iraq right now in a national civil war... to allow it to spread to a regional civil war between Sunnis (in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan) and Shi'ites (Iran and Iraq) would have terrible immeidate consequences that will last for a long, long time.
We are at least opening a dialogue with Iran and Syria (something the experience of James Baker suggested and George W. Bush initially rejected). I am glad George has 'flip-flopped' on this because like it or not, he has painted us into this corner and now we HAVE to deal with Iran (and Syria) on their terms, not ours. Failure to do so would possibly allow Iran to be the one to bring stability to Iraq.
A complete bizarro outcome that is a possible scenario... Iranian troops invited in by the Shi'ite lead Iraqi government... resulting in U.S. and Iranian troops in a 'coalition' to stabilize Baghdad. If the Iraqis initiate this... how does America react? What else can we do? Withdraw and leave it all to Iranian troops? Train Iranian troops in U.S. military tactics.. with U.S. taxpayer dollars? Not probable... but, definately a possibility in that strange part of the world. Stranger shit has happened... and in this royal fuck up of all fuck ups... anything is possible.
Hail, Hail!!!
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/18/gardiner-iran/
down a little is a short video w/ a retired air force colonel who says some say we already in iran, the house committee on emerging threats called on state and defense departments to testify if this were true or not....the officials didn't show up
is this operation southern focus all over again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Focus
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way