Lieberman: U.S. should consider military strike against Iran

Phase 2? I think we've gone through a hell of a lot more phases than that, ROX. Don't forget the phase before the war and occupation ever started... the lying to the American people and the world about Saddam's "threat" and his supposed ties to 9/11 by Bush, Cheney and his administration. Damned lies, and Bush, Cheney, Rove and company haven't stopped lying since.



D&D. Replicant Democrat.

 

Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi who said that Saddam was indeed a WMD threat before our troops went into Iraq? Yes, it was...

Pelosi's statement

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops participating in the current action.

I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means.

___________________________________________________
In this light, it appears that the President and his buds weren't the only ones full of s**t.

 

has the UN served any purpose other than just talking?

from Megadeth's new song "United Abominations"

 

LMFAO, that statement (one can tell from the large bold letters on top) was made in 1998, about airstrikes in 1998, and the president she is talking about is Bill Clinton. Those airstrikes are credited with largely destroying the last vestiges of Iraq's WMD capacity.

Nice try but it didn't work. And by "nice" i mean not nice at all.

 

roflcopter

 

oops. burned.

 

How many major wars have there been in the last 50 years? How many were there in the 50 years before the UN?

How many children's lives have been saved by UNICEF? How many people have benefited from the tens of thousands of peacekeepers that have been deployed at various times around the world? How many international crises have been averted by having that central place to talk? How might have the Cuban missile crisis turned out if there was no UN?

The UN isn't perfect because the member nations aren't perfect. But to act like it hasn't accomplished incredible things is akin to saying the CIA is a failure because it can't stop 100% of attacks, nevermind if it stops 99 out of 100.

 

I am in utter awe that those amazingly subtle lyrics were somehow jammed into a valid time signature. I must find this song.

 

I knew I liked you for a reason. I swear to Jeebus that was my exact thought.

 

We definitely should consider strikes against Iran. Targets should include all their nuclear capability, major roads to afganistan and iraq, and other targets that are a threat to our objectives and the overall stability to the region.

Consider is different from acting out.

The other question is though how much saber rattling we should do. We have to be careful not to back the Iranians into a position of defiance - as then we only escalate to airstrikes and open the sense that we are anti-Muslim.

Iraq has lost us a lot of credibility. I think it would be wise for us to preach diplomacy, but consider airstrikes and prepare for them, including the positioning of military units. Iran's intelligence should be made to conclude that strikes are potentially immenient, while we offer an olive branch.

Afterall the pen is mighter then the sword....but if you are going to speak softly, you better be carrying a big stick - one that can't be concealed.

 

hey roxran, should we "kill" the saudi arabians, because they have been providing far more arms and support to kill americans than iran has. and correct me if im wrong, but none of the 9/11 hijackers were from iran, while 15 of them were from saudi arabia.


and roxran, how do you feel about our government now supporting a terrorist organization founded by 9/11 mastermind khalid sheikh mohammed and comprised of members of the taliban (jundullah)? should we be working with a terrorist group whose founder is responsible for the deaths of 3,000 americans to help them carry out more terrorism in iran?

 

you are a real badass

 

my thoughts exactly.

and i know its been said a million times but what about korea also. dont they pose a threat to america also.

why should we talk talk to anyone like other nations do???

shouldnt we just ATTACK EVERYONE. seriously everyone. why just pick and choose. "kill them" kill them all.

those people you want to "kill" are sick. just like yourself. if it were not for people like those and yourself and anyone else that looks for and tries to justify killing around every corner. this world would be a better place. but we are a long way off from evolving to that point as a human race.

a lot of these people here (its happened gradually and is subtle these last 30-40 years in america) but you think any killing in defense of the united states. but its not and history will look very badly on this period in in the U.S. and not only is it wrong but it makes things worse. it increases violence. its a vicious cycle. i hope people like you and whomever support these kind of things enjoys it.

and you may think wow this guy is being a bit too serious for a rockets message board and needs to chill out a bit. but you think probably since i started writing this post some iraqi kid or woman has probably been killed or an american soldier. when we have no right to be over there having a war with iraq more then any other country.

maybe that person in iraq that died will have family member that will grow up one day to be angry enough will be able to come over to america and figure out an even better way to kill people then sept. 11th. or maybe you think we can "kill them" all by going to one country in the middle east "fight them over there, George Bush" and there will be no middle eastern people left to be terrorists.

its a sick twisted game for all those involved. money, power, and religion. ALWAYS deal with violence with violence seems to be the option by those people. and the only option.

 

wow I thought they stopped making your kind in the 80's



j/k

your grammar did get worse as your post continued lol obviously it's a subject you're passionate about.

 

me being very tired. and that was written in about an hours time.

 

Can we 'Secure' Iraq 1st?

Rocket River
Finish one war before starting another one

 

afghanistan?