 |
| |
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
It would be interesting to see what the Ayatollahs do if the entire world stops trading with them. |
What diplomatic capital do you think this adminstration has left? As usual, you're delusional to think that the "whole world" will stop trading with Iran. Not only will Russia and China likely refuse to go along, but I rather strongly suspect much of "the West" will also. I wonder, why would they be reluctant to back us up? Hmm....
Seems to me the last time we went the UN about WMDs in a Middle-Eastern nation and requested action, there was little political will in the world, including our allies, to take military action. Then we ignored that, did it anyway, and lo & behold THEY WERE RIGHT - no WMDs, and futhermore a helluva mess to deal with. So what, exactly, would make any of the nations that disagree with us last time do otherwise w/regard to Iran?
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
What diplomatic capital do you think this adminstration has left? As usual, you're delusional to think that the "whole world" will stop trading with Iran. Not only will Russia and China likely refuse to go along, but I rather strongly suspect much of "the West" will also. I wonder, why would they be reluctant to back us up? Hmm....
Seems to me the last time we went the UN about WMDs in a Middle-Eastern nation and requested action, there was little political will in the world, including our allies, to take military action. Then we ignored that, did it anyway, and lo & behold THEY WERE RIGHT - no WMDs, and futhermore a helluva mess to deal with. So what, exactly, would make any of the nations that disagree with us last time do otherwise w/regard to Iran?
-Arrian |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
First off, if Iran actually already has WMDs, they're safe from us.
Second, it is unclear to me that we have the right to decide who gets nukes and who doesn't.
Notwithstanding #2, even if one assumes it IS our right to prevent other nations from getting the bomb, as a practical matter we do not appear to be in a position to do anything about Iran, other than bombing. Bombing has a pretty good chance of missing some or all of the WMD program, and furthermore will greatly strengthen the regime's claims about the U.S. being the Great Satan. PLUS, if and when Iran DOES get WMDs, they will have a legitmate axe to grind... because, well, we ****ing BOMBED them!
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Ramo, Sy Hersh is the anti-American's best friend. He never fails in embarassing the United States and undermining its security. He is a real gem, the darling of the left and, particularly, of the French. He, more than any other journalist, truly deserves to be arrayed in the honors of those he has served so well. All Cheer Seymour Hersh. Wave the flags of North Vietnam, the Soviet Union, Cuba and now of al Qaeda and, most of all, of his hero, the falsely incarcerated, Saddam Hussein! |
Who can be friends with a country that has maintained despots for decades, uses chemical weapons as a matter of course (alledgedly) and is anti-Islamic as a matter of course?
Well, us I guess. The rest of the world has a hard time with it.
What is happening is that America is going from Cold War "fire brigade" mentality to trying to achieve some lasting political systems.
It's a bit like a 100 metre sprinter training for the mile... the requirements are totally different.
Blaming Hersh for reporting what he sees is like burning people at the stake for saying the earth goes around the sun.
It's also interesting to note that he's castigating the "civilians in the White House", so presumably the uniformed personnel are the ones feeding him the info.
With your background Ned, maybe you should think about that last point the most... do a soldier's loyalties lie with the elected politicians or the people who put those politicians there?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
What diplomatic capital do you think this adminstration has left? As usual, you're delusional to think that the "whole world" will stop trading with Iran. Not only will Russia and China likely refuse to go along, but I rather strongly suspect much of "the West" will also. I wonder, why would they be reluctant to back us up? Hmm....
Seems to me the last time we went the UN about WMDs in a Middle-Eastern nation and requested action, there was little political will in the world, including our allies, to take military action. Then we ignored that, did it anyway, and lo & behold THEY WERE RIGHT - no WMDs, and futhermore a helluva mess to deal with. So what, exactly, would make any of the nations that disagree with us last time do otherwise w/regard to Iran?
-Arrian |
Arrian, the alternative to UN sanctions is war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Arrian, the alternative to UN sanctions is war. |
Actually, that's ONE alternative to UN sanctions. The others are:
1) Nothing at all.
2) Diplomacy (attempting to convince the Iranians that we will make it worth their while to give up nukes).
Option 1, of course, means they get nukes if they want 'em.
Option 2 has a rather low likelyhood of success at this point, particularly if it's the Bush administration doing the "diplomacy."
Frankly, I don't give a damn. The worry is that Iran would get nukes and give them to some terror organization. The idea that Iran would directly attack us with nukes is absurd. So that leaves Hezbolla or some other similar group. That is a danger, although I rank it lower than you do, I think.
The question, for me, is this:
Does blocking Iran from getting nukes - and all that that entails (diplomacy, sanctions, war - whatever) increase or decrease our security?
On the one hand, if our efforts are successful, we block a hostile regime from getting nukes and thus shut down one possible pathway through which terrorists could get them. One the other hand, however, our efforts are likely to do two things:
1) stir up yet more anger & hatred against us; and
2) make other regimes even more determined to get nukes and fast - because once you've got them, you're safe from us. In fact, it is the only thing that makes you safe from us. Otherwise, you can find yourself on a list of "outposts of tyranny" and expect the USAF to pay you a visit.
Me, I think we should leave Iran the hell alone. And if you think that's traitorous or something, you can kiss my hairy liberal ass.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Does blocking Iran from getting nukes - and all that that entails (diplomacy, sanctions, war - whatever) increase or decrease our security?
On the one hand, if our efforts are successful, we block a hostile regime from getting nukes and thus shut down one possible pathway through which terrorists could get them. One the other hand, however, our efforts are likely to do two things:
1) stir up yet more anger & hatred against us; and
2) make other regimes even more determined to get nukes and fast - because once you've got them, you're safe from us. In fact, it is the only thing that makes you safe from us. Otherwise, you can find yourself on a list of "outposts of tyranny" and expect the USAF to pay you a visit.
Me, I think we should leave Iran the hell alone. And if you think that's traitorous or something, you can kiss my hairy liberal ass.
-Arrian |
In reality I tend to have the same view as I did back at pre-Iraq and mirror man yuor your comments Arrian.
This however does not mean in any way we shouldn't be spying our asses off in Iran to more completely understand the nature of Iran's intentions. To that end lets up the spy dollars for more human intel.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-01-2005 15:05
Is that what you believe Ted? Is Bush that powerful? Come on you can tell me.
|