Horsecrap, we spent 50 years countering threats from the Soviet Union and never went to war, Iran will be the same. We will maintain the threat of overwhelming retaliation and they will rattle the sabers to appear strong and give the government an outside adversary to divert internal dissension. They know an attack on Israel would be suicidal. They know closing the Straits of Hormuz would kill their own economy. They know they are in for a long proxy war in Iraq in support of their neighboring Shia and the Saudis can outspend them. They are in a position where all they can do is bluster. And eventually, the tech savvy youth who just want to live more Western, more comfortable and free lives will take over, like they are all over the world. Just contain them, embargo them, let the Saudi's pay to bog them down in Iraq, subvert their youth with technology and wait them out. It will mellow over the next decade.
i didnt miss anything - you say you would bomb them - what do you think the result of an air strike would be? Spoiler the answer is 'war'. you think its ok to bomb a country for doing things that are not in our "interests". thats simply insane. if you are willing to bomb a sovereign nation, which is an act of war, you damn well better be willing to invade them as well b/c iran would most certainly go on the offensive in the region. you said you would bomb them too to make sure they dont get it. and again, that is an act of war. thats fine, but realize that what you are advocating will only serve to strengthen the theocratic regime and unite the iranian people behind them and against us. any hope for a popular uprising against the current regime would vanish the moment we bomb them.
i know you are just trollin' samuel, but ill play along. your secretary of state hill-dog has made several antagonizing comments towards iran. when running for president she said she would "obliterate" iran if they messed w/ israel. she even threatened to use nukes against them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAO4fH6g0g0 in 2009 she threatened a "first strike...the way we did iraq" http://news.antiwar.com/2009/06/07/clinton-threatens-to-attack-iran-the-way-that-we-did-iraq/ in 2010 she said iran faced "painful consequences" if the pursued a nuclear program. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP4S0iMpai8&feature=player_embedded in 2011 that dude said "all options are on the table" “it is the policy of this administration that Iran cannot be permitted to have a nuclear weapon and no option has ever been taken off the table.” http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-a-nuclear-weapon-no-option-is-off-the-table/ even your president obama says "no options off the table means I’m considering all options". http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-...e-allowed-to-develop-nuclear-weapons-1.400406
Seems like a few of our isolationists do not understand the complex dynamics involved in political international relations.
Don't be rediculous. I was actively opposed to the Vietnam War, as you know very well. However, I despise the theocratic Iranian regime, whose policies towards its people and the world are anathema to damn near every liberal ideology on the planet. Who are brutalizing their own people. Who's private military of the theocrats is more powerful than the national armed forces. Why any sane person would want that mad regime to have atomic weapons is a mystery to me, because if they are left unchecked in their nuclear program, that is what we are facing, and they are quite capable, in my opinion, of doing something incredibly stupid with atomic weapons, atomic weapons that they are on the verge of creating, IMO. While I am opposed to actually attacking those facilities because of the civilian casualties that would surely result, I'm for any act to stop them short of war. And making a huge dent in their oil income is certainly getting their attention. We should have done it long ago. I give Obama credit for acting in a way previous administrations were reluctant to do. I just hope we can keep Israel on a leash. Iran is doing everything it can to assure that the Israelis will attack, and with active assistance by the US, some European powers, and some regimes in the region. If that happens, it will be a tragedy, and war always has unintended consequences. Something I said here many times before when George Goofus prepared to invade and occupy Iraq. The irony is that the Iranian theocracy getting atomic weapons is a far greater threat than Saddam's regime ever was, and all Bush's actions did was make the Iranian regime more powerful. Sure. If we can make them nervous, I applaud it. Perhaps they'll step back from the brink. And I've said before that I am a Jack Kennedy Democrat, and think that being stronger than the other guy is a good way to prevent war. Sue me! That doesn't make me a "Cold War Liberal" and your comment about Vietnam was highly insulting, even if it was sarcasm. The theocratic regime is taking an incredible gamble, and they are gambling with the lives of their own people.
We bombed Yugoslavia. No invasion. We bombed Libya. No invasion. The Israelis bombed Saddam to take out his WMDs in the 80s. No invasion. Now if Iran went and say, invaded Iraq or something after we took out their nuke sites, that might call for actual boots on the ground. But there's no way they would do that - the Iranians aren't that stupid. We have things we're not willing to do to Iran ( like invade them) and they have things they're not going to do to us, especially since they are the weaker party. All he's saying is that the chances of invasion aren't zero. And they're not. It's just incredibly, incredibly unlikely, and I'll be utterly shocked if we've invaded Iran by June 2013. What does Obama actually gain by stating that we absolutely won't invade Iran to begin with? Nixon's "crazy man" theory of diplomacy is at work here, and I don't mind it. Oh, I understand that perfectly. It sucks, because Iran really is an interesting country, and as I've said before, I would ideally like to ditch the Saudis and become closer with the Iranians. But we must work within reality, and if I have to choose between a theocratic Iran without nukes or a democratic Iran with nukes, I won't hesitate to choose the former. Difference of opinion, I guess. "Interests", in this case, means "A nuclear arms race in the Middle East is something we REALLY don't want, for incredibly obvious reasons." I would think preventing that is an incredibly important goal, but I guess under isolationism, it really isn't.
I'm not really buying the Iran threat either. Let them have the nukes. Non-proliferation is a losing battle anyway and holding the line with Iran is not worth all the bad blood and polarization it causes. I think we're doing exactly the wrong thing with Iran and making an enemy where none need exist. Drop the non-proliferation bs and normalize relations. Buy oil. Invest in Iranian businesses. Send the tourists.
not wanting to bomb a country who has not attacked us first does not make one an isolationist. obamas policies are anathema to damn near every liberal ideology too - should we bomb ourselves?
So, one comment from 3 years ago from the SOS, a random TV interview she gave as a candidate 4 years ago when desperately flailing for votes ....and Obama saying all options aren't off the table and you get: <!-- / message --> Basically you are moving us to IranWarDEFCON 2, right now, January 2012 becuase of these few items: Spoiler <!-- sig -->
thats all fine and good, but i could just as easily point out that we bombed kosovo and invaded, we bombed iraq and invaded, we bombed afghanistan and invaded, we bombed vietnam and invaded, we bombed the s*** out of several latin american countries and invaded, ect, ect. but iran is a different situation from all of the above so its pointless to compare. and it still doesnt change the fact that you are advocating bombing a sovereign nation (an act of war) which has not attacked us first. so its your contention that iran would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons on the united states or its "allies", but would not be stupid enough to invade iraq? or stupid enough to mount some kind of counter attack? again, not wanting to bomb a country which has not attacked us first does not make one an isolationist.
samuel, you asked me who had been threatening iran and i posted not one, but four comments from hill-dog, one of them made less than 2 months ago. and i stand by the comments you quoted - we do indeed be heading towards some kind of attack on iran. but i didnt need to hear about some joint training exercise to see this...we have been heading this direction since bush was in office. as usual, your obama is just continuing what bush and cheney started.
The one that says "all options are on the table"...which you take to mean this: Quote: <TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=qBox>here we are 9 years after iraq [in 2012]deciding that we are going to preemptively strike yet another country. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <!-- / message -->Quote: <TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=qBox>just looking at where things are going. we appear to be on the verge of attacking a country which has not done anything to us</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=qBox>here we are 9 years after iraq [in 2012]deciding that we are going to preemptively strike yet another country. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=qBox></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I never said Iran would use nuclear weapons on us. Frankly, if Iran and just Iran got nuclear weapons, I wouldn't care all that much. The problem is that since the rest of the Middle East doesn't like Iran ( and should be noted, wouldn't have our protection if all we focused on are immediate attacks on ourselves like you seem to advocate), Iran getting nukes means that the rest of the Middle East begins to try to get them, and that's very, very bad for incredibly obvious reason. Do you REALLY think letting the thugs who rule most of the Middle East having weapons like that is a good idea? Your argument is that airstrikes will inevitably lead to invasion. I've proved otherwise. The fact that airstrikes sometimes lead to invasion is irrelevant. I think this becomes a massive philosophical difference. Do you really think the US should only strike when someone else strikes it? I don't believe that at all. Bush may have utterly ****ed up with his decision to invade Iraq, but that doesn't mean pre-emptive war is inherently the wrong decision. If an airstrike could destroy Iran's nukes, I would do it. If it's an act of war, then so be it. Preventing them from obtaining it is worth an airstrike, even if it's not worth an invasion. I'm a realist above all, someone who follows and greatly admires the thinking of Kissinger. For the greatest nation in the world to sit around and not attempt to influence the global stage to something that benefits it is inherently wrong. Power exists to be used. If we don't, someone else will, and they won't do what is best for us, but rather what is best for them. And that's not a good thing.
Yeah!!! Destroy Iran's non-existent nukes for freedom!!!!111!!! I want my sons to die to install a puppet government in Iran!!!11! For freedom, of course!
Iran is threatening Israel IAEA saying Iran developing nuke Iran tried to launch terrorist attack on u.s. soil Iran threatening to close shipping channels. We have not done anything...yet. But no one wants Iran to have nukes. It's a risk the world doesn't need to take. And yes, we should bomb Iran if it continues. Can you imagine what a nuclear Iran can get away with? Do you know the number of terrorist attacks and other behavior it can do with worrying about retaliation? This is not Iraq. This is real.
