Shouldn't the US fear Iran too?

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by alphieb
Why is Iran not an issue as well? Their leader was talking about how Israel should be removed from the map? Now thats a good leader for ya. You know they hate us equally for our relationship with Israel as well.

Iran has been the issue all along. Afganistan and Iraq were just part of an overall scheme to tighten the noose on Iran.

 

[alphieb]

Iran refuses to stop producing nuclear weapons. I think that is horrifying, I think they would like to nuke Israel and maybe even us. They may end up complying with the UN, but so far they refuse to do so. They don't want the US involved at all in the negotiation. Other countries have weapons as such, but they are not really a threat.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by alphieb:
Iran refuses to stop producing nuclear weapons. I think that is horrifying, I think they would like to nuke Israel and maybe even us. They may end up complying with the UN, but so far they refuse to do so. They don't want the US involved at all in the negotiation. Other countries have weapons as such, but they are not really a threat.

Actually, they haven't produced any weapons, yet. They have every right to have nuclear energy. If they do start enriching uranium, I'm sure the Israeli's will drop the hammer.

 

[Loxd4]

There are over 350 possible installations in Iran with nuclear capability. And the upper Northern areas of Iran cannot be reached by Isreali airplanes...

Then what?...

Why can't Isreali air forces reach Northern areas of Iran to BOMB the nuclear capability up there?

 

[alphieb]

Actually, they haven't produced any weapons, yet. They have every right to have nuclear energy. If they do start enriching uranium, I'm sure the Israeli's will drop the hammer.

Oh, I thought they were attempting or in the process of building them?

 

[MSgt]

If Israel feels like Iran is a threat then they should take care of them. The United States shouldn't have to babysit Israel. Israel has the greatest airforce in the world, I think they can take care of themselves.

Would you say that about any of our allies around the world who are threatened or is this merely reserved for Israel, because you'd rather not get involved with a determined enemy?

 

[Pacridge]

Why can't Isreali air forces reach Northern areas of Iran to BOMB the nuclear capability up there?

This has been discussed at some length here. Scroll up and you should see Tashah give a fairly logical explanation.

 

[MSgt]

Iran has been the issue all along. Afganistan and Iraq were just part of an overall scheme to tighten the noose on Iran.

Very good. Very insightful.

Iran being in the "spotlight" is not a recent thing. They have always been in focus. Just because the media's eye has been recently fixed does not mean that threats have not already been identified long ago by all the right people. Iran is a very conflicted country. As I have stated before, 70 percent of the population is under thirty years old and they are disenchanted with their leadership. They know all too well that Khomeini brutalized Islam and they want a modern and democratic society. Surprise...that's what we want for them too. The immediate threats are WMD, as always, but the long term threat is the exponential growth of Radical Islam. The people of Iran are willing to take the steps neccessary to turn back the clock on Radical Islam in their country if given the "CORRECT" support. The issues of Iran must remain a diplomatic one and we (America) must only lend support through "indirect" means.

HOWEVER...if things escalade, because of their government's insistence of nuclear power and Europe's need to appease a problem away, militarily, they are surrounded. Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades…inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. We cannot afford to allow this to happen with Iran. One of the reasons our military is able to be in any location within a 24 hour period, is our forward bases. With democracies moving forward in Iraq and Afghanistan...how fast can we be in Iran? I keep saying that there is a bigger picture involved. Iraq is not just about Iraq and Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. The long term threat to our people is Radical Islam and their access to WMD.

In military operations there is such a thing as "Current Ops" and "Future Ops." These two sections work seperately, but together and our CIA has much the same structure.

 

[GarzaUK]

The long term threat to our people is Radical Islam and their access to WMD.

Hmm Pakistan?? Oh wait we are allies with the dictator there right. What happens when he dies or get assasinated (he's very unpopular with his people right now after helping the US in Afganistan)?

Is the US going to go to war with Pakistan in the future as well? I guess not - Pakistan already has nukes - crazy to invade them.:roll:

 

[alphieb]

Hmm Pakistan?? Oh wait we are allies with the dictator there right. What happens when he dies or get assasinated (he's very unpopular with his people right now after helping the US in Afganistan)?

Is the US going to go to war with Pakistan in the future as well? I guess not - Pakistan already has nukes - crazy to invade them.:roll:

Very good point? What shall we do with Iran attempting to make nuclear weapons? I wouldn't trust Tehran with Nukes for one second. By the same token, how in the world could we invade with the mess we already have in Iraq?

 

[GarzaUK]

Very good point? What shall we do with Iran attempting to make nuclear weapons? I wouldn't trust Tehran with Nukes for one second. By the same token, how in the world could we invade with the mess we already have in Iraq?[/QUOTE

Everyone alive could have told Bush that Iran and North Korea were the biggest threats..... but no he had to pick the target with the most oil in it for his buddies "project of the new American century" stratagem. I'm so angry with Bush and Blair, as we are paying for it now.

We knew Iran was hiding a nuclear program back in 2002, but it just had to be Iraq. But aplhie as Bush said "he tried kill my daddy." Karma, Mr. Bush karma.

 

[alphieb]

Very good point? What shall we do with Iran attempting to make nuclear weapons? I wouldn't trust Tehran with Nukes for one second. By the same token, how in the world could we invade with the mess we already have in Iraq?[/QUOTE

Everyone alive could have told Bush that Iran and North Korea were the biggest threats..... but no he had to pick the target with the most oil in it for his buddies "project of the new American century" stratagem. I'm so angry with Bush and Blair, as we are paying for it now.

We knew Iran was hiding a nuclear program back in 2002, but it just had to be Iraq. But aplhie as Bush said "he tried kill my daddy." Karma, Mr. Bush karma.

"He tried to kill my Daddy" is a ridiculous reason to put so many other lifes at jeopardy. I wonder if that is not the sole reason for that invasion.

 

[GarzaUK]

"He tried to kill my Daddy" is a ridiculous reason to put so many other lifes at jeopardy. I wonder if that is not the sole reason for that invasion.

It's not, one of reasons? I don't know.

This whole thing is very karmic tho, we invade Iraq for oil wealth, we ignore the real threat. For goodness sake, if Iran gets nuke it can wipe out London, Paris, Berlin, Rome. Supporters of the Iraq war can argue all they like, but oil was certainly at least one of the reasons for this war. Saddam would have given the oil to Russia, China or India, the last two are upcoming powers. The nation controlling Iraq's oil would give the nation suprency for the majority of this century.

 

[MSgt]

Hmm Pakistan?? Oh wait we are allies with the dictator there right. What happens when he dies or get assasinated (he's very unpopular with his people right now after helping the US in Afganistan)?

Is the US going to go to war with Pakistan in the future as well? I guess not - Pakistan already has nukes - crazy to invade them.:roll:

Learn the subject at hand. Schools in session....

Pakistan has been the greatest disappointment among the major states that tried democracy. It should have been a contender, having begun its nationhood with a legacy of British legal traditions, an educated political class and a vigorous press. Instead, Pakistan became a swamp of corruption, demagogy and hatred. Those who believe in democracy need to recognize an ugly truth: Military government remains Pakistan's final hope — and even that hope is a slight one.

This is painful for us to accept. Well-intentioned Americans with no personal experience of the outrageous criminality that came to characterize every one of Pakistan's major political parties rebel against the notion that any military government can ever be good. Certainly, military regimes are despicable. Gen. Pervez Musharraf's government, albeit imperfect, is the sole exception in the world today.

Pakistan is an artificial country, cobbled together from ethnically different parts and flooded early on with Muslim refugees from India — who still form a distinct social and political bloc. The Pathans of the northwest frontier have more in common with their Afghan neighbors than with the Sindhis on the other side of the Indus River, whose culture reflects that of Mughal India. The Punjabis of Lahore inhabit a different civilization from the tribesmen of Baluchistan. Pakistan's Kashmiris are something else entirely.

Instead of seeking unity, Pakistan's political parties exploited internal divisions for short-term advantage. Well-educated political families, such as the Bhuttos, took a page from the Chinese nationalists, telling Westerners exactly what we wanted to hear. Preaching democracy and the rule of law abroad, they looted shamelessly at home. And they blamed the colonial powers, then America, for the destruction of a once-promising society. No matter their political allegiance, Pakistan's party bosses stole everything in sight, reducing the country to stinging poverty and stunning violence. It wasn't just the remote frontiers that became lawless, but even Karachi, Pakistan's largest city.

The fragile government adheres to the age old culprit of rising tyranny. They appease. It is a cry we hear all too often. "Why did we attack terrorists....we don't want to anger them." The price of being afraid of antagonizing the Radical element inside Pakistan is the same fear that enabled Indonesia to be crippled in Bali. The Pakistani government has learned that the appeasement of monsters only allows them to fester and gather support.

One thing that I have learned from my experiences has become unmistakable: the least-corrupt institution is the military. The military government attempting to rescue Pakistan is the country's last hope. The alternatives are chaos and terror. We may wish it were otherwise: Military government is repugnant. But the world is more complex than we try to make it. Perverted democracy brought ruin upon more than 100 million Pakistani Muslims. We all are paying the price.

Pakistan has nuclear arms. If this country's military turn on us, we will have to endure yet another "Cold War" and our tactics against terror will have to take a HUGE step up. One thing is certain...we did not stymie the nuclear threat of Moscow by invading the U.S.S.R., nor will we make such a wreckless endeavor into another nuclear armed country. (See North Korea.) Once they have nukes, it is too late to do anything. All the more reason to not allow an enemy like Iran its "right" to be like our allies.

 

[KCConservative]

"He tried to kill my Daddy" is a ridiculous reason to put so many other lifes at jeopardy. I wonder if that is not the sole reason for that invasion.

It wasn't any part of the reason, despite what MoveOn.Org tells you.

 

[cnredd]

"He tried to kill my Daddy" is a ridiculous reason to put so many other lifes at jeopardy. I wonder if that is not the sole reason for that invasion.

Why do you ask such a question when you don't look at the actual resolution passed by Congress?...:roll:

Get your head in the game...

 

[alphieb]

Why do you ask such a question when you don't look at the actual resolution passed by Congress?...:roll:

Get your head in the game...

We are there based on false pretenses. Bush didn't give Congress much opportunity to decide anything.

 

[ProudAmerican]

We are there based on false pretenses. Bush didn't give Congress much opportunity to decide anything.

im so sick of this liberal lie i could puke.

if we are there based on a lie.....it damn sure wasnt started by the Bush administration.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
im so sick of this liberal lie i could puke.

if we are there based on a lie.....it damn sure wasnt started by the Bush administration.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

I'm sick of bad Americans making excuses for this bullshit war. Bush lied. He made Iraq to be some god-damn mushroom cloud threat and they weren't. They still do not have 24/7 electrical power. How can any nation that barely has running water and electricity be a threat to anyone? Get real!

That f_cker in office lied his ass off and we all know it. And you know something else, he knew it too!

2002 Memo Doubted Uranium Sale Claim
By ERIC LICHTBLAU Published: January 18, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 - A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was recently declassified by the State Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/politics/18niger.html?oref=login

 

[ProudAmerican]

I'm sick of bad Americans making excuses for this bullshit war. Bush lied. He made Iraq to be some god-damn mushroom cloud threat and they weren't. They still do not have 24/7 electrical power. How can any nation that barely has running water and electricity be a threat to anyone? Get real!

That f_cker in office lied his ass off and we all know it. And you know something else, he knew it too!

if he lied, so did Clinton. the proof is right there in black and white.

but we know, Clinton made an honest mistake and Bush lied.

tow that party line.

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

saying Bush intentionally LIED while all those before him just made an honest mistake makes you look like a tard.

the difference between partisan hacks that cant think for themselves and people like me is, I would have supported Bill Clinton the same way I support George Bush, even thought he had a (D) by his name. That is, if he had the balls to actually protect this country.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
if he lied, so did Clinton. the proof is right there in black and white.

You're right.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
but we know, Clinton made an honest mistake and Bush lied.

You're wrong, they both lied.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
tow that party line.

What are you talking about? I'm Green Party.

 

[ProudAmerican]

You're right.

sort of.
they were both CORRECT about Iraqs threat to the world and the country. nukes? doubtful. chemical weapons, WITHOUT A DOUBT.

You're wrong, they both lied.

nope.

What are you talking about? I'm Green Party.

my bad. I mistakenly refered to "liberals" as a political party

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

Well he didn't have any WMD's now, did he?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

Hans Blix final report stated Iraq did not have the capability for making WMD's since 1992.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

I got news for you, he's not the only one who's done that. It was just convenient for us to state that.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
saying Bush intentionally LIED while all those before him just made an honest mistake makes you look like a tard.

Show me one post where I said that.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
the difference between partisan hacks that cant think for themselves and people like me is, I would have supported Bill Clinton the same way I support George Bush, even thought he had a (D) by his name. That is, if he had the balls to actually protect this country.

9/11 didn't happen on his watch.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Well he didn't have any WMD's now, did he?

I duno, ask Scot Ritter

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

for you to claim this man didnt have the ability to harm American citizens is simply nuts.

Hans Blix final report stated Iraq did not have the capability for making WMD's since 1992.

you certainly have the right to put your security in the hands of Hans Blix and an organization as clearly innefective as the UN. more power to ya. I prefer to put my faith in my own government, even if the leader is a member of the green party.

I got news for you, he's not the only one who's done that. It was just convenient for us to state that.

no argument about that. I think EVERY leader that does that should be dealt with harshly.

Show me one post where I said that.

we have concluded that you think everyone lied. I simply think the evidence shows you are wrong.

9/11 didn't happen on his watch.

nahhh, just the 8 years prior where we did nothing to prevent it.

 

[KCConservative]

Bush lied. He made Iraq to be some god-damn mushroom cloud threat and they weren't. [/I]

No he didn't. He said terrorism was a threat. And we eliminated one of the most henous terrorists on the planet, in Saddam Hussain. No one ever said the good people of Iraq were a mushroom cloud threat. That's the only lie I see.