Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on December 03, 2007, 11:36:49 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html)
any thoughts considering all the saber rattling we've been doing for the last year?
-
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html)
any thoughts considering all the saber rattling we've been doing for the last year?
This is good.
Something still needs to be done about Iran supplying insurgents, if that's still happening.
-
This is good.
Something still needs to be done about Iran supplying insurgents, if that's still happening.
Yeah totally trust em
"But Iran is continuing to enrich uranium for its civilian nuclear reactors. That leaves open the possibility the fissile material could be diverted to covert nuclear sites to make enough highly enriched uranium to make a bomb."
-
This is good.
Something still needs to be done about Iran supplying insurgents, if that's still happening.
I'm still waiting to see confirmed proof they ever did. To date, I haven't seen any.
-
Yeah totally trust em
"But Iran is continuing to enrich uranium for its civilian nuclear reactors. That leaves open the possibility the fissile material could be diverted to covert nuclear sites to make enough highly enriched uranium to make a bomb."
I don't totally trust them, in part because of this:
"But the latest report says Iran -- which declared its ability to produced enriched uranium for a civilian energy program in 2006 -- could reverse that decision and eventually produce a nuclear weapon if it wanted to do so."
But the fact they aren't currently trying to develop weapons is good news.
-
I'm still waiting to see confirmed proof they ever did. To date, I haven't seen any.
I'll take headhunter's word for it. :)
-
I'll take headhunter's word for it. :)
I didn't know he was in Iraq? Where did he say he has indisputable proof of Iran supplying insurgents? As much as I argue with him, I would take his word with a level of credibility as I believe he is a righteous dude :D
-
You know, i don't even know why Iran supplying insurgents is even a question:
- They are opposed to the US invasion and occupation
- They are culturally opposed to us.
- They have much to gain if we fail in Iraq.
It's like you have a room mate and your beer goes missing and your room mate is a drinker.
-
You know, i don't even know why Iran supplying insurgents is even a question:
- They are opposed to the US invasion and occupation
- They are culturally opposed to us.
- They have much to gain if we fail in Iraq.
It's like you have a room mate and your beer goes missing and your room mate is a drinker.
Well, if you're ever out of work, I'm sure they'll have a seat for you in the next neocon think tank :D
-
I didn't know he was in Iraq? Where did he say he has indisputable proof of Iran supplying insurgents? As much as I argue with him, I would take his word with a level of credibility as I believe he is a righteous dude :D
I don't think he's currently in Iraq, but he did say he believes Iran is supplying insurgents. Good enough for me. :)
-
You know, i don't even know why Iran supplying insurgents is even a question:
- They are opposed to the US invasion and occupation
- They are culturally opposed to us.
- They have much to gain if we fail in Iraq.
It's like you have a room mate and your beer goes missing and your room mate is a drinker.
Are you saying there is no question they are supplying insurgents? If so, what should we do about it?
-
The govt made two statements on Iran.
1) They are building nukes
2) They are funding the insurgency
Well, they were absolutely sure of #1, and now we see it was (as Rove admits we were in Iraq) INCORRECT.
I spose many of you will just grant them your complete faith in their #2 statement above. You'll ignore the WMD mistake in Iraq, and the WMD mistake in Iran now.
-
I don't think he's currently in Iraq, but he did say he believes Iran is supplying insurgents. Good enough for me. :)
This is so odd... In light of what they did in Iraq, I can't believe I have to justify asking what proof there is before we obliterate another country...
Yea, he said "If it walks like a duck..."--HH6 ::) The guys that have been held as Iranian agents... let go... Gee if they really had something on them, wtf? I could apply the same logic given by Ozmo to Russia, should we also assume they are involved? BB, opinions should carry some weight, but your "good enough for me" write off based on one guys opinion is silly.
There could have been a different direction:
It's only a six minute section, I know it breaches the 3:00 limit but what the hell, I'll just post it just in case.
(click number 2) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/
-
This is so odd... In light of what they did in Iraq, I can't believe I have to justify asking what proof there is before we obliterate another country...
Yea, he said "If it walks like a duck..."--HH6 ::) The guys that have been held as Iranian agents... let go... Gee if they really had something on them, wtf? I could apply the same logic given by Ozmo to Russia, should we also assume they are involved? BB, opinions should carry some weight, but your "good enough for me" write off based on one guys opinion is silly.
There could have been a different direction:
It's only a six minute section, I know it breaches the 3:00 limit but what the hell, I'll just post it just in case.
(click number 2) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/
My comments were partly tongue-in-cheek. Headhunter isn't the only one who has said it. I think I posted an article about this a while back, with comments from other military personnel. I've also talked to other folks who have been on the ground and they say the same thing.
I interrupted my Christmas music and listened to the entire clip. :) Yes, it looks like things did take quite a turn and the "axis of evil" comments were not helpful.
-
Well, if you're ever out of work, I'm sure they'll have a seat for you in the next neocon think tank :D
got more than i can handle now 8)
However, it's just obvious, and prudent for Iran to help the insurgents in someway(s). To think they are not becuase of an absence of concrete proof would be incompetent.
i get what you are saying, but you if you were a betting man would you bet they are not?
-
Are you saying there is no question they are supplying insurgents? If so, what should we do about it?
Nothing. We will do nothing until it suits us to do so. Until then it's unofficial.
-
The govt made two statements on Iran.
1) They are building nukes
2) They are funding the insurgency
Well, they were absolutely sure of #1, and now we see it was (as Rove admits we were in Iraq) INCORRECT.
I spose many of you will just grant them your complete faith in their #2 statement above. You'll ignore the WMD mistake in Iraq, and the WMD mistake in Iran now.
Something happened 240. something happened and this news from the US government might be the first steps in backing up from the "we should attack Iran" justification campaign.
-
This is so odd... In light of what they did in Iraq, I can't believe I have to justify asking what proof there is before we obliterate another country...
Yea, he said "If it walks like a duck..."--HH6 ::) The guys that have been held as Iranian agents... let go... Gee if they really had something on them, wtf? I could apply the same logic given by Ozmo to Russia, should we also assume they are involved? BB, opinions should carry some weight, but your "good enough for me" write off based on one guys opinion is silly.
There could have been a different direction:
It's only a six minute section, I know it breaches the 3:00 limit but what the hell, I'll just post it just in case.
(click number 2) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/
It would be harder for Russia to be involved and not get exposed and the political fall out from getting exposed might outwieght what they would gain from it.
Iran is right next to Iraq with a border that stretches for miles. They can supply them with arms that would hard to trace back to Iran. They can help train and advise insurgents. All of this would be easy for them to do, unofficially and easy for them to keep it hidden.
Again, why wouldn't they be trying to help America fail? they have everything to gain from it.
Do you really think they are just sitting there not doing a dam thing and seeing what happens?
Do you really think no one from Iraq is asking for their help promising them a piece of the pie?
Now, is that enough for us to justify a war? Probably not. So until it suits us, we will not bring it out.
-
Honestly, I don't think we're going to attack Iran.
I think some in the neocon camp would love to. They've tried to sell it but resources are thin and without a draft, we don't have the men to do it. With a draft, public support ends and the economy tanks. I think we did try to instigate it in March with those UK soldiers who let themselves be captured. Perhaps if they had been killed, we would have had war with them.
But a false flag, today, would be so obvious that I don't think many would buy it. 60+% of americans at the very least allow the possibility that 911 was an inside job. If there's another attack, the firs tthing they'll say is "Inside job!" whether it is or not.
(cue the dickheads to say "no one I know believes this.." when repeated polls show that yes, people do consider inside job a possibility).
-
got more than i can handle now 8)
However, it's just obvious, and prudent for Iran to help the insurgents in someway(s). To think they are not becuase of an absence of concrete proof would be incompetent.
i get what you are saying, but you if you were a betting man would you bet they are not?
If we're talking about government sanctioned efforts to help the insurgency, yes, I would like proof. If there's a significant aiding going on, it shouldn't be that hard to prove, in fact if you look at every major instance of this happening in a war, it has been impossible to hide significant aid by an outside player. So I'm left wondering when all their so called proof has fallen apart. If we're talking about elements in Iran, well I'd say that's almost a sure bet. But then again there are elements all over the middle east that fit this label. Is it sanctioned and funded by Iran, that's the important question and one I think you just can't assume is happening even if you strongly suspect it.
-
It would be harder for Russia to be involved and not get exposed and the political fall out from getting exposed might outwieght what they would gain from it.
I disagree somewhat. If they were found out, I'm sure it wouldn't be on a level that went to the top. An operation like that wouldn't be ran out of Putin's office. Hell, even we don't have a problem conducting extremely damning operations around the world with little political fallout for the leaders... The most that would happen is they'd have their own version "Oliver North" take the fall... And I would argue that they're taking an increasing hostile stance toward us as of late without much consequence, especially where Iran and Iraq are concerned.
Iran is right next to Iraq with a border that stretches for miles. They can supply them with arms that would hard to trace back to Iran. They can help train and advise insurgents. All of this would be easy for them to do, unofficially and easy for them to keep it hidden.
Well actually the weapons they have found are stamped, "Made in Iran" serial numbers and all written on the weapons :D I'm sure if they were sent in by Iran, they would have removed this little item? If it's being done on a major level, training insurgents, supplying weapons, they would not be able to hide it that easy. And come to think of it, was there not an incremental evolution in the bombs and tactics used? If they were provided with help, you wouldn't see as much of an evolution in these items, there would have been more of a huge leap. An evolution suggests trial and error.
Again, why wouldn't they be trying to help America fail? they have everything to gain from it.
I didn't disput this.
Do you really think they are just sitting there not doing a dam thing and seeing what happens?
Do you really think no one from Iraq is asking for their help promising them a piece of the pie?
Now, is that enough for us to justify a war? Probably not. So until it suits us, we will not bring it out.
I don't know... The only thing I do know is that all evidence I've seen fell apart. It is not impossible at all that the Iranian government has not provided help to the insurgency and I would disagree with your idea of it not coming out until it suits us. There have been many times they've tried to make the case, it obviously suited us to prove it. Why would you release shaky evidence, try to make the case in public and not use the smoking gun... because there is no smoking gun.
-
Nothing. We will do nothing until it suits us to do so. Until then it's unofficial.
If we know someone is supplying the "enemy" we have to do something IMO.
-
If we know someone is supplying the "enemy" we have to do something IMO.
I'm curious, playing devil's advocate, what would you have done on Russia's side when we were supplying the Afghans in the 80's?
and futher, what are you suggesting we do now? Two plans are on the table of which only one is suggested as workable which is a total shock and awe, on a level not ever seen before, of Iran according to neocon think tank BS... This plan is in focus rather than a limited strike because of the possibility that Iran has the capability otherwise to retaliate in Iraq, according to their logic... The thinking is that with a large scale attack, the retaliatory ability of Iran will be eliminated... Of course I believe this would only further fuel extremism leading us down an even more dangerous future. You're commander and chief, what do you do? I know what I would do, what would you do?
-
I'm curious, playing devil's advocate, what would you have done on Russia's side when we were supplying the Afghans in the 80's?
and futher, what are you suggesting we do now? Two plans are on the table of which only one is suggested as workable which is a total shock and awe, on a level not ever seen before, of Iran according to neocon think tank BS... This plan is in focus rather than a limited strike because of the possibility that Iran has the capability otherwise to retaliate in Iraq, according to their logic... The thinking is that with a large scale attack, the retaliatory ability of Iran will be eliminated... Of course I believe this would only further fuel extremism leading us down an even more dangerous future. You're commander and chief, what do you do? I know what I would do, what would you do?
I would have done precisely what Russia did for years: arms race, spy, etc. Would not have attacked the U.S., because the U.S. would have kicked Russia's butt.
I don't know what we should do, but doing nothing is not an option, because it endangers the troops. I wish we could just find suppliers and blow them up. Maybe Special Forces, etc. are already doing something.
-
I would have done precisely what Russia did for years: arms race, spy, etc. Would not have attacked the U.S., because the U.S. would have kicked Russia's butt.
I don't know what we should do, but doing nothing is not an option, because it endangers the troops. I wish we could just find suppliers and blow them up. Maybe Special Forces, etc. are already doing something.
::) If ever there were a deserving eye roll... You do know that during that time, according to our estimates or propaganda?, they outnumbered us like 7 to 1 on nuclear arms. At the height, there would not have been a winner under any scenario you could image so please don't suggest we would have kicked their ass ::) Your answer of arms race, spy etc is insufficient since that was already common place before Afghanistan. With what you just said, Russia should have done nothing which is pretty much what they did. Now what would you have done, nothing or something?
-
::) If ever there were a deserving eye roll... You do know that during that time, according to our estimates or propaganda?, they outnumbered us like 7 to 1 on nuclear arms. At the height, there would not have been a winner under any scenario you could image so please don't suggest we would have kicked their ass ::) Your answer of arms race, spy etc is insufficient since that was already common place before Afghanistan. With what you just said, Russia should have done nothing which is pretty much what they did. Now what would you have done, nothing or something?
I guess that means you don't like my answer? :) I got nothing more dude. The fact they had more nuclear weapons means they did exactly what I said they should have done: arms race.
And yes, we would have beat the snot out of the Russians. We had better soldiers, a better air force, better commanders, better equipment, etc. Just look at how much trouble they had in Afghanistan. We would have killed the Russian military.
We also did well by promoting glasnost, which probably helped cripple communism as much or more than the arms race.
But I'm done. Have to get on a plane in a few hours. . . .
-
I guess that means you don't like my answer? :) I got nothing more dude. The fact they had more nuclear weapons means they did exactly what I said they should have done: arms race.
And yes, we would have beat the snot out of the Russians. We had better soldiers, a better air force, better commanders, better equipment, etc. Just look at how much trouble they had in Afghanistan. We would have killed the Russian military.
We also did well by promoting glasnost, which probably helped cripple communism as much or more than the arms race.
But I'm done. Have to get on a plane in a few hours. . . .
guy, this answer is still not adequate... There was already an arms race. Again, no we would not have beat the snot out of the Russians... had there been a full scale war it would have gone nuclear and all else on the ground is irrelivant. Nobody wins... good god, I shouldn't have to acutally make this case...
you have nothing more? You didn't even address the most pressing and relevant question?????
and futher, what are you suggesting we do now? Two plans are on the table of which only one is suggested as workable which is a total shock and awe, on a level not ever seen before, of Iran according to neocon think tank BS... This plan is in focus rather than a limited strike because of the possibility that Iran has the capability otherwise to retaliate in Iraq, according to their logic... The thinking is that with a large scale attack, the retaliatory ability of Iran will be eliminated... Of course I believe this would only further fuel extremism leading us down an even more dangerous future. You're commander and chief, what do you do? I know what I would do, what would you do?
-
I would have done precisely what Russia did for years: arms race, spy, etc. Would not have attacked the U.S., because the U.S. would have kicked Russia's butt.
I don't know what we should do, but doing nothing is not an option, because it endangers the troops. I wish we could just find suppliers and blow them up. Maybe Special Forces, etc. are already doing something.
The special explosives showing up in Iraq and attributable only to Iranian manufacturing has been dealt with already. A factory for producing those explosives was found a few miles outside of baghdad.
-
I would have done precisely what Russia did for years: arms race, spy, etc. Would not have attacked the U.S., because the U.S. would have kicked Russia's butt.
"Kicked russia's butt"?
Um, you do know that we were dueling nuclear superpowers, right?
We may have killed 90% of their population and they only got 40% of ours, but dude...
"Kicked their butt"?
What grade are you in?
-
"Kicked russia's butt"?
Um, you do know that we were dueling nuclear superpowers, right?
We may have killed 90% of their population and they only got 40% of ours, but dude...
"Kicked their butt"?
What grade are you in?
This is one war no one would have won and one war that nukes kept us out of.
How ever, conventionally we would have dominated them in a protracted war.
-
This is one war no one would have won and one war that nukes kept us out of.
How ever, conventionally we would have dominated them in a protracted war.
Any conventional war between nuclear powers will go nuclear the minute one of them is about to lose their shirt.
BB's assertion that "we'd kick their butt" is asinine.
-
guy, this answer is still not adequate... There was already an arms race. Again, no we would not have beat the snot out of the Russians... had there been a full scale war it would have gone nuclear and all else on the ground is irrelivant. Nobody wins... good god, I shouldn't have to acutally make this case...
you have nothing more? You didn't even address the most pressing and relevant question?????
Yes I did:
"I don't know what we should do, but doing nothing is not an option, because it endangers the troops. I wish we could just find suppliers and blow them up. Maybe Special Forces, etc. are already doing something."
-
The special explosives showing up in Iraq and attributable only to Iranian manufacturing has been dealt with already. A factory for producing those explosives was found a few miles outside of baghdad.
So we have identified and eliminated the source of Iranian weapons to insurgents?
-
"Kicked russia's butt"?
Um, you do know that we were dueling nuclear superpowers, right?
We may have killed 90% of their population and they only got 40% of ours, but dude...
"Kicked their butt"?
What grade are you in?
::) Shush. Go play.
-
This is one war no one would have won and one war that nukes kept us out of.
How ever, conventionally we would have dominated them in a protracted war.
Exactly. Neither the U.S. nor Russia would have used nukes. Both countries would have been wastelands.
No contest in a conventional war. I doubt it would have even been protracted.
-
Regarding the original topic, I was flipping through radio stations and listened to Rush Limbaugh for about 2 minutes (about all I could stand). He actually made an interesting observation: Iran stopped trying to build nukes when we invaded Iraq. Is it possible they knew they were next if they didn't stop their program?
-
Yes I did:
"I don't know what we should do, but doing nothing is not an option, because it endangers the troops. I wish we could just find suppliers and blow them up. Maybe Special Forces, etc. are already doing something."
??? We should do something but you have no opinion on what that should be?
-
??? We should do something but you have no opinion on what that should be?
Correct. I indicated what I wish we could do ("find suppliers and blow them up"). But realistically speaking, I don't know precisely what we should do. I'm all in favor of anything that will protect our men and women in uniform, but I will leave the decision on what needs to be done to the Commander in Chief.
Why is it so important that I have an opinion on this anyway?
-
Correct. I indicated what I wish we could do ("find suppliers and blow them up"). But realistically speaking, I don't know precisely what we should do. I'm all in favor of anything that will protect our men and women in uniform, but I will leave the decision on what needs to be done to the Commander in Chief.
Why is it so important that I have an opinion on this anyway?
Because you said something should be done. Of course it's not our decision, but on something of this level, public debate is not only ok, but a good idea. If it's unwarrented, why do we even have to bother with them making a case for war with the public? They ought to just do it if we're not to debate it. I told you the options on the table as noted in a recent History Channel program put together by neoconservatives. Are you for a full scale shock and awe of Iran or not? Are you for a limited strike? If so what of the neoconservative notion that a limited strike is unworkable do to Iran's ability to strike in Iraq and against Israel--their words not mine.
-
Because you said something should be done. Of course it's not our decision, but on something of this level, public debate is not only ok, but a good idea. If it's unwarrented, why do we even have to bother with them making a case for war with the public? They ought to just do it if we're not to debate it. I told you the options on the table as noted in a recent History Channel program put together by neoconservatives. Are you for a full scale shock and awe of Iran or not? Are you for a limited strike? If so what of the neoconservative notion that a limited strike is unworkable do to Iran's ability to strike in Iraq and against Israel--their words not mine.
I do not have enough information to say whether or not "shock and awe," limited strikes, or any other military option (other than a full-scale ground invasion, which would be bad) is a good idea.
BTW, there is a small restaurant in one of the towns near a military base that has been advertising a "Shock and Awe Breakfast" since about 2003. Only $2.99. :)
Yes debate, discussion, etc. is always good, but you don't have to immediately have a solution in mind to identify a problem that needs to be fixed, particularly if you're not the decision maker. This isn't like that darn pothole I've been rolling over for the past three stinkin months (I keep forgetting to call the pothole hotline). It's a complicated problem.
-
I do not have enough information to say whether or not "shock and awe," limited strikes, or any other military option (other than a full-scale ground invasion, which would be bad) is a good idea.
BTW, there is a small restaurant in one of the towns near a military base that has been advertising a "Shock and Awe Breakfast" since about 2003. Only $2.99. :)
Yes debate, discussion, etc. is always good, but you don't have to immediately have a solution in mind to identify a problem that needs to be fixed, particularly if you're not the decision maker. This isn't like that darn pothole I've been rolling over for the past three stinkin months (I keep forgetting to call the pothole hotline). It's a complicated problem.
Well, if you're going to support a cause where the main proposed solution is shock and awe on a scale never seen before, I think it's a good idea to know what you're backing don't you? It's rather convienent for one to back something and dust off their hands where blood is spilt. "I support it, but it wasn't my choice to wack them..." :-\ I'm just saying, if you're going to buy it, own it..
-
Honestly, I don't think we're going to attack Iran.
I think some in the neocon camp would love to. They've tried to sell it but resources are thin and without a draft, we don't have the men to do it. With a draft, public support ends and the economy tanks. I think we did try to instigate it in March with those UK soldiers who let themselves be captured. Perhaps if they had been killed, we would have had war with them.
But a false flag, today, would be so obvious that I don't think many would buy it. 60+% of americans at the very least allow the possibility that 911 was an inside job. If there's another attack, the firs tthing they'll say is "Inside job!" whether it is or not.
(cue the dickheads to say "no one I know believes this.." when repeated polls show that yes, people do consider inside job a possibility).
Everything in bold, I agree with, and the post above it was also right on target, pointing out that the Bush administration made two claims that turned out to be nothing but... UNTRUE.
But then...then you start off with some stuff about how soldiers "let themselves be captured".
Ok, give me some source on that.
And, your usual stuff about how 9-11 was really planned by the government.
Feeling a little more Conspirational than usual today, mon ami? :)
-
::) Shush. Go play.
You are ruining a good thread.
I completely dismantled your argument, and you respond with "shush".
You are a terrible mod and very poor debater.
-
Well, if you're going to support a cause where the main proposed solution is shock and awe on a scale never seen before, I think it's a good idea to know what you're backing don't you? It's rather convienent for one to back something and dust off their hands where blood is spilt. "I support it, but it wasn't my choice to wack them..." :-\ I'm just saying, if you're going to buy it, own it..
? I'm not supporting a cause.
-
You are ruining a good thread.
I completely dismantled your argument, and you respond with "shush".
You are a terrible mod and very poor debater.
::) You crying again? Good grief. Go find some Leggos and do something constructive.
-
? I'm not supporting a cause.
"cause" was not the correct word, but you must know what I mean after several posts on the subject...
If we know someone is supplying the "enemy" we have to do something IMO.
Specifically this is about being hehind "doing something"
-
I do not have enough information to say whether or not "shock and awe," limited strikes, or any other military option (other than a full-scale ground invasion, which would be bad) is a good idea.
BTW, there is a small restaurant in one of the towns near a military base that has been advertising a "Shock and Awe Breakfast" since about 2003. Only $2.99. :)
Yes debate, discussion, etc. is always good, but you don't have to immediately have a solution in mind to identify a problem that needs to be fixed, particularly if you're not the decision maker. This isn't like that darn pothole I've been rolling over for the past three stinkin months (I keep forgetting to call the pothole hotline). It's a complicated problem.
Also, how can you say you don't have enough information to have an opinion? There is plenty of available information for the purposes of debating between a few people on this small forum... Nobody is asking you to advise the president :D
-
Also, how can you say you don't have enough information to have an opinion? There is plenty of available information for the purposes of debating between a few people on this small forum... Nobody is asking you to advise the president :D
I view this is as a discussion, not a debate.
I can say I don't have enough information, because I don't have enough information. :) It looks like the nuclear issue is contained. I don't know enough about weapons being provided to insurgents and what the appropriate response should be. Whatever we can do to stop it, if it's still happening, is what needs to be done. If you're asking precisely what that action should be, I'll tell you again I don't know.
I'll talk to some of my military friends about it and see what they say.
-
::) You crying again? Good grief. Go find some Leggos and do something constructive.
you're really terrible at what you do here. Really.
-
you're really terrible at what you do here. Really.
:'(
-
I view this is as a discussion, not a debate.
I can say I don't have enough information, because I don't have enough information. :) It looks like the nuclear issue is contained. I don't know enough about weapons being provided to insurgents and what the appropriate response should be. Whatever we can do to stop it, if it's still happening, is what needs to be done. If you're asking precisely what that action should be, I'll tell you again I don't know.
I'll talk to some of my military friends about it and see what they say.
I definitely think Iran needs to be pursued further, and tightly checked.
Just like IAEA has flagged for all along.
But Bush Administration making claims that turns out to be untrue, may actually hurt the chances to get a dialogue going with Iran, or prevent the UN from taking proper measures.
It's very unfortunate that the Bush Administration once again seems to have bit of a little more than they could chew.
But bottom line is that Iran needs to be convinced, in one way or another, to not pursue "nucelear" weapons.
IMO that way should be diplomatic.
-
So we have identified and eliminated the source of Iranian weapons to insurgents?
We have eliminated a source.
At least I'm honest enough to admit that.
Why does the Bush Adm and its supporters believe that the weapons could only come from Iran? The facts just aren't there to support that belief. Seems like a disengenuous argument to me...even along the lines of propaganda.
-
I definitely think Iran needs to be pursued further, and tightly checked.
Just like IAEA has flagged for all along.
But Bush Administration making claims that turns out to be untrue, may actually hurt the chances to get a dialogue going with Iran, or prevent the UN from taking proper measures.
It's very unfortunate that the Bush Administration once again seems to have bit of a little more than they could chew.
But bottom line is that Iran needs to be convinced, in one way or another, to not pursue "nucelear" weapons.
IMO that way should be diplomatic.
I tend to think gunboat diplomacy will probably be the most effective way to deal with Iran. Having a bunch of troops right across their border helps.
-
We have eliminated a source.
At least I'm honest enough to admit that.
Why does the Bush Adm and its supporters believe that the weapons could only come from Iran? The facts just aren't there to support that belief. Seems like a disengenuous argument to me...even along the lines of propaganda.
Maybe they are only coming from Iran. Maybe they are coming from multiple countries (what one of my friends believes). But I've only heard military commanders talk about weapons coming from Iran. I don't think that's propaganda.
-
Talked to my friend about this yesterday. He has been to Iraq twice and Afghanistan. He believes there are weapons coming from Iran and other places. That the Iranian government is giving a wink and nod, but probably doesn't have Iranian government officials overseeing weapons distribution. That it may be impossible to isolate the source of these weapons and take them out.
-
Talked to my friend about this yesterday. He has been to Iraq twice and Afghanistan. He believes there are weapons coming from Iran and other places. That the Iranian government is giving a wink and nod, but probably doesn't have Iranian government officials overseeing weapons distribution. That it may be impossible to isolate the source of these weapons and take them out.
The problem is that the weapons coming from the black market in the middle east are being attributed to Iran by our US government which looks like it wants a military strike against Iran and an excuse to do that attack.
-
The problem is that the weapons coming from the black market in the middle east are being attributed to Iran by our US government which looks like it wants a military strike against Iran and an excuse to do that attack.
They're being attributed to Iran because it is likely some weapons are coming from Iran.
-
They're being attributed to Iran because it is likely some weapons are coming from Iran.
Some probably are and some definitely are not. The IED manufacturing plant found in Iraq bears that out. I'm certain that the insurgents also have British and American weapons. Does that mean that those countries are arming the insurgents? Of course not.
The rhetorical techniques of attributing Iran as an active supplier of weapons to insurgents (now called "Al Qaeda" almost exclusively) are used for the purpose of dumbing down the facts to paint Iran as a viable and pressing military target for US forces.
-
Some probably are and some definitely are not. The IED manufacturing plant found in Iraq bears that out. I'm certain that the insurgents also have British and American weapons. Does that mean that those countries are arming the insurgents? Of course not.
The rhetorical techniques of attributing Iran as an active supplier of weapons to insurgents (now called "Al Qaeda" almost exclusively) are used for the purpose of dumbing down the facts to paint Iran as a viable and pressing military target for US forces.
I see a distinction between weapons that originated in the U.S. or Britain that made their way through arms dealers to insurgents and elements working within Iran to actively supply insurgents. Based on what I've heard, there is probably nothing we can do about it, but it is definitely a problem for our troops.
-
I see a distinction between weapons that originated in the U.S. or Britain that made their way through arms dealers to insurgents and elements working within Iran to actively supply insurgents. Based on what I've heard, there is probably nothing we can do about it, but it is definitely a problem for our troops.
Do you see that same distinction with Iran and the area's black market arms dealers?
As a practical matter, I'm pretty sure that iranian citizens are helping out/arming Iraqis that are Shia but that's not government sponsored.
What if there is a faction of the Iranian government that is arming insurgents without the official blessings of the entire Iranian government--like a rogue faction? How does the US handle that?
Conceptually, I just described the Iran/Contra Affair.
-
Do you see that same distinction with Iran and the area's black market arms dealers?
As a practical matter, I'm pretty sure that iranian citizens are helping out/arming Iraqis that are Shia but that's not government sponsored.
What if there is a faction of the Iranian government that is arming insurgents without the official blessings of the entire Iranian government--like a rogue faction? How does the US handle that?
Conceptually, I just described the Iran/Contra Affair.
I think the difference is the Iranian government knows what is going on and is probably working behind the scenes to facilitate arms distribution to insurgents. But as I indicated, there is probably nothing we can do about it.
It does sound similar to Iran/Contra.
-
I think the difference is the Iranian government knows what is going on and is probably working behind the scenes to facilitate arms distribution to insurgents. But as I indicated, there is probably nothing we can do about it.
...
President Bush has already had the Iranian Revolutionary Guard labeled a terrorist organization b/c the alleged arming of insurgents. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/115226
That's a tangible step towards attacking Iran.
-
President Bush has already had the Iranian Revolutionary Guard labeled a terrorist organization b/c the alleged arming of insurgents. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/115226
That's a tangible step towards attacking Iran.
Decker let's assume what he said back in February is true. What do you think we should do about it?
-
If China had overthrown the Mexican and Canadian govt, you'd damn well better BELIEVE we'd be giving guns to the mex and can people fighting them.
(recall that iran sits smack dab between afghanistan and iraq)
-
Decker let's assume what he said back in February is true. What do you think we should do about it?
I would withdraw the troops from Iraq tomorrow and let the free market take over in Iraq in all facets--political, economic and social.
Removing the instigating cause of all this trouble over there would do the trick.
Anything else lends credibility to the US's Iraqi disaster. And it is a disaster for the lives ruined, the dead and displaced, and almost zero political progress in turning an ethnically distinct dictatorship into a model of Jeffersonian democracy.
-
I would withdraw the troops from Iraq tomorrow and let the free market take over in Iraq in all facets--political, economic and social.
Removing the instigating cause of all this trouble over there would do the trick.
Anything else lends credibility to the US's Iraqi disaster. And it is a disaster for the lives ruined, the dead and displaced, and almost zero political progress in turning an ethnically distinct dictatorship into a model of Jeffersonian democracy.
We own contracts to 80% of Iraqi oil, forever.
Why would we leave that $ behind?
We have what, 15 bases there, that we now admit are permanent.
Why lose that advantage in that region?
Deck, I agree that they assfvcked the intel and lied to the world and us to get this war. But the war reparations they are paying in the form of contracts and base permissions forever - those are global advantages we have to keep. No president would walk away from that. I sure wouldn't. yes - it was illegal and immoral that we stole it. We did. WE stole it. But now that we have it, we gotta keep it or someone else will steal it.
-
We own contracts to 80% of Iraqi oil, forever.
Why would we leave that $ behind?
We have what, 15 bases there, that we now admit are permanent.
Why lose that advantage in that region?
Deck, I agree that they assfvcked the intel and lied to the world and us to get this war. But the war reparations they are paying in the form of contracts and base permissions forever - those are global advantages we have to keep. No president would walk away from that. I sure wouldn't. yes - it was illegal and immoral that we stole it. We did. WE stole it. But now that we have it, we gotta keep it or someone else will steal it.
I understand your point. I also agree with your former point about, how if it were the US/Mex/China, we would be arming the Mexicans.
We knew back in the 1960s that oil would never be a longterm energy solution. But the vested interests wanted to ride the oil train to the last drop.
The US could still start a national alternative energy program on par with the space program of the 60s and the race to the moon.
Now b/c of the greed of a plutocratic few and the general lethargy/malaise of the public, I am supposed to accept murder and theft as a reasonable response to our energy needs.
I won't do that. And I won't accept the idea that our fossil fuel based economy is a determined path that we must walk with no alternative.
Expediency is on your side 240.
-
I would withdraw the troops from Iraq tomorrow and let the free market take over in Iraq in all facets--political, economic and social.
Removing the instigating cause of all this trouble over there would do the trick.
Anything else lends credibility to the US's Iraqi disaster. And it is a disaster for the lives ruined, the dead and displaced, and almost zero political progress in turning an ethnically distinct dictatorship into a model of Jeffersonian democracy.
That's one alternative. Part of me wishes we could immediately bring everyone home, but an immediate withdrawal might result in genocide.
Since we're never leaving, however, if we were able to prove the Quds Force is supplying insurgents we should take them out. But I doubt we can prove this.
-
That's one alternative. Part of me wishes we could immediately bring everyone home, but an immediate withdrawal might result in genocide.
I don't believe we care about that. I don't. Do you?
Since we're never leaving, however, if we were able to prove the Quds Force is supplying insurgents we should take them out. But I doubt we can prove this.
Agreed we're never leaving. And even if they are supplying them with arms, "taking them out" isn't pushing a few buttons and flinging some tomahawks at them. It's declaring war on a nation with 70 mil people, a shitlod of money and oil, and treaties with Russia and Iran. And, they could shut down the gulf in 5 minutes if they wanted and spike oil to $400 a barrel and cripple us.
-
I don't believe we care about that. I don't. Do you?
Agreed we're never leaving. And even if they are supplying them with arms, "taking them out" isn't pushing a few buttons and flinging some tomahawks at them. It's declaring war on a nation with 70 mil people, a shitlod of money and oil, and treaties with Russia and Iran. And, they could shut down the gulf in 5 minutes if they wanted and spike oil to $400 a barrel and cripple us.
Yes I care about genocide.
Not sure what point you're trying to make, but no one said any military operation would be simple.
-
You said:
"Since we're never leaving, however, if we were able to prove the Quds Force is supplying insurgents we should take them out."
We cannot just "take out" an army backed by a govt the size of Iran. Do you agree or disagree?
-
Does anyone know if Halliburton is still doing business with Iran?
Halliburton Doing Business With the 'Axis of Evil'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58298-2005Feb2.html
I don't think it is?
-
You said:
"Since we're never leaving, however, if we were able to prove the Quds Force is supplying insurgents we should take them out."
We cannot just "take out" an army backed by a govt the size of Iran. Do you agree or disagree?
I stand by what I said. Also, I don't know how big the Quds Force is, so I cannot say precisely what would be involved in taking them out, blowing up supply lines, etc. As I already stated more than once, we probably aren't going to be able to prove this link, isolate the source, and eliminate it anyway. So what's your point?
-
we could easily provide proof weapons were coming from iran. I thought it had already been established to a small degree.
my point is that you don't just 'take out' an army like that. they'll splinter the secnod the first missile launches and you'll have 2000 small guerilla armies attacking us across the border. it'd be a clisterfvck, and we'd be fighing it with oil prices 5 times higher. no way to win that.