for those against the Iraq war..... (1 Viewer)

[ProudAmerican]

I would like for you to give us your input on the upcomming conflict with Iran. after todays nonsense, I am pretty well convinced we will end up fighting these idiots.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191819,00.html

so this time, rather than you guys sitting by, and waiting, and playing monday morning quarter back......I would like to see you post how you would handle the situation.

that way, when we do whatever it is we are going to do, you cant sit back and say....."we were wrong" or "I would have done it this way"

do we have enough evidence to attack them? they state they have begun uranium enrichment and they have openly stated they will wipe out a U.S. ally in the region.

I dont care if you agree with Israel being an ally....thats another thread. the fact is, they are. should we defend them?

do we have the right to pre emptively do something about this problem?? or is a mushroom cloud over israel, or worse, an American city, the last straw for you?

how long do you think diplomacy should be used?

should we allow the U.N. (an organization PROVEN to be corrupt) to run things? and for how long?

how many U.N. resolutions is enough for Iran?
how many years is enough?

and I realize this is an idiotic request, but stay on topic and leave Iraq, Bush, and partisanship out of the debate.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

See, that was my problem with the Iraq war in the first place. We were already engaged in Afghanistan, and we already had anti-terror security operations in place-- and then we opened a massive can of worms.

Action against Iran is absolutely necessary-- we must protect our allies-- but our forces are already over-deployed and fraying at the edges. Our economy is strained. And to deploy in Iran means taking resources away from an already tenuous security situation in Iraq.

We are in the damnable position of either leaving our ally to fend for herself or opening serious breaches in our anti-terror security. I don't think we have a choice in the matter-- if we appear weak in supporting Israel, it's only going to encourage other anti-Israel factions to pile on, leading to even more security risks in the future.

We've hamstrung ourselves.

 

[ProudAmerican]

but our forces are already over-deployed and fraying at the edges.

I simply dont believe this. if you can give me some defense department numbers, rather than some biased media opinion column on the subject, I may change my mind.

Our economy is strained

spending definately needs to be curbed....but our economy is doing just fine.

And to deploy in Iran means taking resources away from an already tenuous security situation in Iraq.

this part I agree with. we definately may need to speed up getting the Iraqis ready to take care of themselves in order to be able to move on Iran.

also, I believe Iraqs importance comes through now more than ever. I personally believe Irans leader is very nervous, and I think its a good thing. Libyas leader saw the writing on the wall and did the right thing....its too bad this idiot wants to try and flex his muscle. It will only get him killed in the long run.

I believe though that we MUST PREVENT HIM FROM OBTAINING A FUNCTIONAL nuclear weapon. and this will require PRE EMPTIVE ACTION, something many liberals just cant comprehend.
many on this site, and around the country, would rather wait untill after this maniac has used one to do something about the problem, and IMO, that is simply unacceptable.

 

[cnredd]

See, that was my problem with the Iraq war in the first place. We were already engaged in Afghanistan, and we already had anti-terror security operations in place-- and then we opened a massive can of worms.

Action against Iran is absolutely necessary-- we must protect our allies-- but our forces are already over-deployed and fraying at the edges. Our economy is strained. And to deploy in Iran means taking resources away from an already tenuous security situation in Iraq.

We are in the damnable position of either leaving our ally to fend for herself or opening serious breaches in our anti-terror security. I don't think we have a choice in the matter-- if we appear weak in supporting Israel, it's only going to encourage other anti-Israel factions to pile on, leading to even more security risks in the future.

We've hamstrung ourselves.

We we we we we...

Where's the UN?....Where's France?...Where's Russia?....

Once again, everyone looks to us for answers while they sit on the sideline waiting to criticize whatever our next move will be...

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I simply dont believe this. if you can give me some defense department numbers, rather than some biased media opinion column on the subject, I may change my mind.

Just look at deployment of Guard and Reserve units. And extra-long tours and repeat deployments.

At least our recruiting numbers are still good.

spending definately needs to be curbed....but our economy is doing just fine.

Job numbers don't support that. And all this spending is going to reach back and bite us sooner or later-- where do you think that money is coming from?

Getting into a third war isn't going to do us any favors for cutting spending, and you know it.

this part I agree with. we definately may need to speed up getting the Iraqis ready to take care of themselves in order to be able to move on Iran.

We can't just "speed up" the stabilization of Iraq. If we do a half-assed job of it, we're only guaranteeing that we'll have to go back in another ten or fifteen years, and guaranteeing that Iraq will serve as a training and staging area for terrorist forces for those ten or fifteen years.

That's why we were more secure with Saddam in control. He may have been anti-American, but his political position required him to keep terrorists in check and between the sanctions and the UN, he was contained.

He was doing terrible things to his own citizens, yes, but his citizens were not our problem until we took responsibility for them. Now, we're not only morally obligated to their security, but our own national security depends upon it.

I personally believe Irans leader is very nervous, and I think its a good thing. ... its too bad this idiot wants to try and flex his muscle. It will only get him killed in the long run.

And why do you think he's trying to flex his muscles now? He's trying to make a display of power-- and obtain nuclear weapons-- so that we can't act against him; this open defiance of American interests is because he's nervous.

I believe though that we MUST PREVENT HIM FROM OBTAINING A FUNCTIONAL nuclear weapon. and this will require PRE EMPTIVE ACTION, something many liberals just cant comprehend.

I agree, but our options are sorely limited by this idiotic "liberation" of Iraq. We don't have the means for effective occupation and our economic and diplomatic options are ineffective.

The only effective action I can foresee is an air campaign that makes Dresden look like the Fourth of July-- and if you think liberals are going to object to occupation and regime change, you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Where's the UN?....Where's France?...Where's Russia?...

Looking for a financial angle, looking after French interests, and looking after Russian interests, as they always have and as they should be. Neither France nor Russia has our strong military alliance with Israel, and a nuclear Iran does not pose the same threat to them as it does to us.

They are irrelevant.

Once again, everyone looks to us for answers while they sit on the sideline waiting to criticize whatever our next move will be...

That's the price of being a superpower. We should spend less time whining that they don't support us and more time leading from the front-- if we act decisively and stop begging, they will follow.

 

[cnredd]

Looking for a financial angle, looking after French interests, and looking after Russian interests, as they always have and as they should be. Neither France nor Russia has our strong military alliance with Israel, and a nuclear Iran does not pose the same threat to them as it does to us.

They are irrelevant.

Had the last statement correct anyway...

That's the price of being a superpower. We should spend less time whining that they don't support us and more time leading from the front-- if we act decisively and stop begging, they will follow.

Ummmmmm....

Wanna give an example of this?....

 

[ProudAmerican]

Job numbers don't support that.

of course they do. 4.7% unemployment. better than at any time during the previous administration.

And all this spending is going to reach back and bite us sooner or later-- where do you think that money is coming from?

I agreed with you on this point. nothing to debate here.

Getting into a third war isn't going to do us any favors for cutting spending, and you know it.

I would personally support recending the tax cuts to support the war on terror.

We can't just "speed up" the stabilization of Iraq. If we do a half-assed job of it, we're only guaranteeing that we'll have to go back in another ten or fifteen years, and guaranteeing that Iraq will serve as a training and staging area for terrorist forces for those ten or fifteen years.

agreed. I believe Iraq is very important and the job must be finished completely. I also believe Iran will have to be dealt with.

That's why we were more secure with Saddam in control. He may have been anti-American, but his political position required him to keep terrorists in check and between the sanctions and the UN, he was contained.

thats a dangerous assumption. Is Iran "contained" because the U.N. passes a resolution they wont enforce?

He was doing terrible things to his own citizens, yes, but his citizens were not our problem until we took responsibility for them. Now, we're not only morally obligated to their security, but our own national security depends upon it.

sometimes the right thing isnt your responsibility. sometimes simply being the right thing is enough. my neighbors kid across the street isnt my responsibility....but if I saw him hit the kid with a baseball bat, I would simply, do the right thing.

And why do you think he's trying to flex his muscles now? He's trying to make a display of power-- and obtain nuclear weapons-- so that we can't act against him; this open defiance of American interests is because he's nervous.

its because hes nervous, and hes a radical nutjob. and he has a right to be nervous. hopefully, we will see him crawling out of a hole in the middle of nowhere surrendering to U.S. troops BEFORE he is capable of doing something terrible.
ya know.....kinda like Saddam did.

I agree, but our options are sorely limited by this idiotic "liberation" of Iraq. We don't have the means for effective occupation and our economic and diplomatic options are ineffective.

the "idiotic" liberation of Iraq was done to PREVENT SADDAM from becomming exactly like this idiot in Iran. and occupation doesnt have to be the case in Iran if the liberals will allow us to effectively fight a war. and our economic and diplomatic options were ineffective in Iraq as well. war is simply the only language these idiots understand.

The only effective action I can foresee is an air campaign that makes Dresden look like the Fourth of July-- and if you think liberals are going to object to occupation and regime change, you ain't seen nothing yet.

I agree on both points. its time we STOPPED allowing liberals to have any say whatsoever in war fighting. we must take this dude out, and his ability to wreak havoc on the region with decisive action. screw the liberal mentality and political nonsense.

 

[VTA]

I simply dont believe this. if you can give me some defense department numbers, rather than some biased media opinion column on the subject, I may change my mind.

The number of active American military personnel is approximately 1.8 million, with less than 150,000 serving in Iraq and about 19000 in Afghanistan.

Iran is not being ignored, part of the reason the American military is now on the Eastern and Western borders of Iran is to deal with them, when the situation arises.

 

[VTA]

Where's Russia?....

Forget Russia, they still have a bad taste in their mouths due to the fall of the Soviet Union. They're on the side of the Mullahs.

France is issueing slight warnings of using its nukes if it gets dragged into the fray.

 

[Billo_Really]

Since it worked all those years in the Cold War, why can't we tell Iran, "Look, you use a nuke, your country will be toast! It will glow in the dark and none of you will be around anymore. None of you!"

At least that's a threat we can back up quite easily without any troops being killed and without world opinion being against us.

 

[VTA]

Since it worked all those years in the Cold War, why can't we tell Iran, "Look, you use a nuke, your country will be toast! It will glow in the dark and none of you will be around anymore. None of you!"

At least that's a threat we can back up quite easily without any troops being killed and without world opinion being against us.

Iran isn't afraid of the U.S. ...

Facing down Iran

Quite long but very true.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
I agree on both points. its time we STOPPED allowing liberals to have any say whatsoever in war fighting. we must take this dude out, and his ability to wreak havoc on the region with decisive action. screw the liberal mentality and political nonsense.

I don't care for this Iran Guy either. But despite his moronic statements, he's the democratically elected leader of his country. That IS what we are trying to spread, right? Democracy? You don't think the entire world sees through our bullshit and hypocrisy? It is not our right to decide what other country's can and cannot do. Period! Get this through your god-damn head!

If that Iran Guy does happen to start some s.h.i.t, we kick his a.s.s! But I haven't seen them attack anyone since the war ended with Iraq. Until they do, you can't just keep making up reasons to attack country's as you go along. Granted, the guy is a lunatic. But did you know that 70% of that country is under 30 years old. I mean, how much longer is there population going to put up with those old religious guys anyway.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by VTA:
Iran isn't afraid of the U.S. ...

Facing down Iran

Quite long but very true.

Neither is Korea, China or Argentina. But you don't see us lining up against them.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I personally dont believe Korea or China has the balls to use nukes. I think they talk a huge game, but in the end, have just as much to lose as America and they know it.

Iran is run by the same type of individual that we have seen time and time again blow himself up, or fly a plane into a building.

HE WILL RISK IT ALL IMO. His holy book commands him to do so.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I don't care for this Iran Guy either. But despite his moronic statements, he's the democratically elected leader of his country. That IS what we are trying to spread, right? Democracy? You don't think the entire world sees through our bullshit and hypocrisy? It is not our right to decide what other country's can and cannot do. Period! Get this through your god-damn head!

If that Iran Guy does happen to start some s.h.i.t, we kick his a.s.s! But I haven't seen them attack anyone since the war ended with Iraq. Until they do, you can't just keep making up reasons to attack country's as you go along. Granted, the guy is a lunatic. But did you know that 70% of that country is under 30 years old. I mean, how much longer is there population going to put up with those old religious guys anyway.

I doubt this will make a dent, but I will try. Im bored with nothing better to do at the moment.

we agree, he is the democratically elected president. 1 you, 0 me

It is not our right to decide what other country's can and cannot do. Period! Get this through your god-damn head!

It is our right when said country threatens the destruction of another country. and there really is no need in getting so confrontational. 1 you, 1 me

If that Iran Guy does happen to start some s.h.i.t, we kick his a.s.s! But I haven't seen them attack anyone since the war ended with Iraq.

waiting untill he starts some shitt means thousands of dead innocent people. and he has, without a doubt, stated he plans to destroy another country. period. 1 you, 2 me

you can't just keep making up reasons to attack country's as you go along.

making up? he has STATED HIS INTENTIONS. we arent making up anything.
1 you, 3 me

Granted, the guy is a lunatic

whoa....an intelligent statement. but really a tie since we both agree
1 you, 3 me

But did you know that 70% of that country is under 30 years old. I mean, how much longer is there population going to put up with those old religious guys anyway

not sure of the relevance of the age of the country. and acording to most, he is within 3 years of having a nuke. so I would say if they put up with him for a total of 33 years, thats too long.

no really relevant to the conversation....so.........1 you, 3 me

:nahnah:

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

thats a dangerous assumption. Is Iran "contained" because the U.N. passes a resolution they wont enforce?

It didn't have anything to do with the various resolutions that Saddam was ignoring. Those weren't what was keeping him contained.

What kept Saddam contained was hostile neighbors and his own security concerns. He couldn't project force against anyone outside his borders without having half the world fall on him, and the terrorists that everyone believes he was supporting were actively seeking to undermine his regime. Even with weapons of mass destruction, he would have had noone to use them on-- except more of his own people-- and he wouldn't have dared to give them to the terrorists, who were as much his enemies as ours.

Saddam did not have the support of the rest of the Middle East; the remnants of the Baath party only gained that after Saddam was captured, and those insurgents we're fighting are mostly foreign radicals that would not have countenanced Saddam's secular politics.

Iraq may have been an oppressive military dictatorship, but it wasn't a hotbed of radical Islamofascism. Past tense intentional.

sometimes the right thing isnt your responsibility. sometimes simply being the right thing is enough. my neighbors kid across the street isnt my responsibility....but if I saw him hit the kid with a baseball bat, I would simply... do the right thing.

You have more moral obligation to your neighbor's kid than we do to a bunch of Kurds.

The problem is, the guy with the baseball bat was also the kid's father. Sure, he was beating the Hell out of the kid on a regular basis-- but he was also using that bat to keep the crazy cult members from down the street from beating the kid. We took away Daddy's bat and kicked his butt, but since we took the bat away, now it's our job to keep the cultists from kicking the kid's butt.

The other problem is, the cultists also want to kick your butt. Daddy just wanted us to leave him alone so he could beat his own kid in peace.

the "idiotic" liberation of Iraq was done to PREVENT SADDAM from becomming exactly like this idiot in Iran.

Saddam didn't have the capacity; a great deal of Ahmadinejad's capacity is based on sharing ideological concerns with much of the rest of the Middle East. Our actions in Iraq have only helped strengthen this bond, since Ahmadinejad is specifically defying the United States and her ally, Israel.

We gave him this power. We handed it to him on a silver platter because of our ham-handed mishandling of the "War on Terror".

its time we STOPPED allowing liberals to have any say whatsoever in war fighting.

I agree, but I would say that as much as we must remove liberals from how we fight wars, we must also remove neoconservatives from why. I think a good deal of the mishandling of these issues is based in the neocons' goals not being the promotion of national security.

They want to keep us at war, and they want to keep us afraid of the barbarians at the gates, because these things help them retain and increase their power.

But that's no way for Americans to live.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Can just be time to point out some things.

Israel has probably nukes.

The Iranien leader can either be totally crazy or he just have taken Bush speak methods to a new level. The answer probably lay some there between. But even if he is totally crazy alot of powerfull Iranie like the mullahs would probably think national suciede is a bad idea.

That do you think the large shia mayority will do then there brothers in Iraq are atacked?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
waiting untill he starts some shitt means thousands of dead innocent people. and he has, without a doubt, stated he plans to destroy another country. period. 1 you, 2 me

So you believe in punishing people for something they haven't done. I was raised to believe people are responsible for their own actions. Not responsible for what might be their perceived reactions.

In addition, your "thousands of innocent dead" appeal doesn't wash. You supported us going into Iraq. What about all the "thousands of innocent dead" in that country? Talk about hypocrisy!

Do you believe in Freedom of Speech?

 

[ProudAmerican]

So you believe in punishing people for something they haven't done. I was raised to believe people are responsible for their own actions. Not responsible for what might be their perceived reactions.

I believe people can be held acountable for what they say they intend to do. if you openly state you intend to shoot the president, you can be arrested, even though you havent done it yet. to want to allow people to openly make threats of murder with no fear of being held acountable is nonsense.

In addition, your "thousands of innocent dead" appeal doesn't wash. You supported us going into Iraq. What about all the "thousands of innocent dead" in that country?

try to stay focused and on topic. we are discussing Iran. thanks

Do you believe in Freedom of Speech?

not when it comes to threatening someones life. absolutely NOT.

you do not have the right to do that under the first amendment. and even if you did, I dont think the president of Iran has protection under our constitution.

 

[Billo_Really]

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm

 

[ProudAmerican]

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,

all this says is that Iran has the right to defend itself if America attacks. and I agree completely. more power to the nutjob. defend yourself. it wont help.

until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security

a bit vague isnt it? this is actually where your Iraq argument fails misserably. any reasonable person would agree that 12 resolutions over a decade were "necessary measures" I dont think we have the luxury of waiting that long with this maniac.

when an organization proves itself to be innefective, corupt, and clearly unable to do its job, then only an idiot would continue to follow them.

Do you believe in Freedom of Speech?

not when it comes to threatening someones life. absolutely NOT.

you do not have the right to do that under the first amendment. and even if you did, I dont think the president of Iran has protection under our constitution.

I believe people can be held acountable for what they say they intend to do. if you openly state you intend to shoot the president, you can be arrested, even though you havent done it yet. to want to allow people to openly make threats of murder with no fear of being held acountable is nonsense.


since it killed your argument and you chose to ignore it, I figured I would post it again for ya.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
all this says is that Iran has the right to defend itself if America attacks. and I agree completely. more power to the nutjob. defend yourself. it wont help.

What it says is that there are only two ways to legally attack another country with military force:

1. If you, yourself are attacked with a significant military force or
2. You receive UNSC authorization.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
a bit vague isnt it?

No, not really.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
this is actually where your Iraq argument fails misserably.

Oh, do tell...

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
any reasonable person would agree that 12 resolutions over a decade were "necessary measures"

Bullshit! Any reasonable person would see a decade of sanctions so harsh that it killed half their children being born in that ten year span! Those sanctions didn't hurt Hussein, they hurt average Iraqis.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
I dont think we have the luxury of waiting that long with this maniac.

I don't think we are waiting at all. The Pentagon planned to attack Iran back in 2004.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
when an organization proves itself to be innefective, corupt, and clearly unable to do its job, then only an idiot would continue to follow them.

Only an idiot would join an organization, then contribute to its downfall.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
not when it comes to threatening someones life. absolutely NOT.

you do not have the right to do that under the first amendment. and even if you did, I dont think the president of Iran has protection under our constitution.

I believe people can be held acountable for what they say they intend to do. if you openly state you intend to shoot the president, you can be arrested, even though you havent done it yet. to want to allow people to openly make threats of murder with no fear of being held acountable is nonsense.

I see your point here and would tend to agree.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
since it killed your argument and you chose to ignore it, I figured I would post it again for ya.

Your being presumptuous. But it's the thought that counts, right?

 

[ProudAmerican]

What it says is that there are only two ways to legally attack another country with military force:

we read it differently.

No, not really.

yeah, really.

Oh, do tell...

i did

Bullshit! Any reasonable person would see a decade of sanctions so harsh that it killed half their children being born in that ten year span! Those sanctions didn't hurt Hussein, they hurt average Iraqis.

EXACTLY. they didnt hurt husseing a bit. innefective. the U.N. didnt do a damn think to prevent saddam from being a threat to the region. all they did was allow him to drag corrupt governments and organizations into an oil for food scandal that continued to SUPPORT HIM.

I don't think we are waiting at all. The Pentagon planned to attack Iran back in 2004.

but we are currently trying diplomacy. you nutjobs kill me. you claim we arent using diplomacy, and then you admit weve been planning war for 2 years. what do you think goes on while we are planning a war?

Only an idiot would join an organization, then contribute to its downfall.

not flaming, but this is one of your dumbest responses to date. anyone that joins an organization certainly has the right to withdraw once that organization has proven to be innefective and corrupt. for you to act like we should tough it out and continue to allow these idiots to run things, and even be put in charge of Americas security is insaine at best.

I see your point here and would tend to agree.

ahhhh, so your agreement here is why we are now talking about the U.N. and Iraq, instead of the original topic....Iran.

Your being presumptuous. But it's the thought that counts, right?

you failed to respond untill after I had posted it a second time. nothing presumptuous on my part at all.

im no longer bored now.....so this will be our last exchange for a while. going around in circles with you isnt something I long for.

happy easter!!!!!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
EXACTLY. they didnt hurt husseing a bit. innefective. the U.N. didnt do a damn think to prevent saddam from being a threat to the region. all they did was allow him to drag corrupt governments and organizations into an oil for food scandal that continued to SUPPORT HIM.

Uh, PA, before you run away, a few final thoughts on Friday's show:

• US dollars contributed to 51% of that scandal and we kept silent for years while knowing what was going on.
• So your calling me a "nutjob" then wishing me a Happy Easter? That's OK, call me anything you want. I don't use that "Report Button" like a weapon (as others do). Which is popular with some around here. I think the "Report Button" is for major ******s who lack the ability to debate void of the "Chicken Little Syndrome".
• In regards to the UN, my response wasn't dumb, but responding to something I didn't say is. Show me where I said we didn't have the right to withdraw from that organization. Or show me how contributing to its ineffectiveness is the same thing as stating we don't have a right to withdraw. When you think about it, it we would have withdrawn from the UN, I wouldn't have an arguement here!

Now run away and cower in the corner until Rumsfield gives you a reason to be "Proud" of "America".