Is Iran Next?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gnjsdad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Philip P:
There were no WMDs, so it looks like things were working. I would have supported continuing the inspections regime, even if it meant the US and Britain continuing it without or even against UN support.

Iraq had not invaded anyone, so containment was working.

In short, the trigger to launch a war (and a war aimed at overthrowing a sovereign state at that) had not been reached.
Click to expand...
The question really wasn’t “Did Saddam have WMDs” because we knew that he did - he used them in Kuwait. The question was: “what did you do with them?” After the Gulf War, we made Saddam provide a complete account of his entire WMD stockpile. Then, in 2004, when he provided us with another inventory, most were mysteriously unaccounted for. That was the problem.

Let’s say that a laboratory here in the States created strands of anthrax that it keeps a stockpile of for research. Authorities order them to dispose of it properly because of the danger it poses, then leave to go about their business. The feds then come back to the laboratory to check on the progress and ask what they did with all their viles of anthrax. If the laboratory were to reply: “I dunno.” The feds would have every right to search the place.

Also, is an all-out invasion necessary for a defensive war? Our planes were shot at constantly in the no-fly zone, in addition to breaking the terms of our truce with him after the Gulf War nearly 20 times (the 18 resolutions modified by the U.N. to give Saddam a “second chance”). How many acts of aggression are necessary before we actively pursue defensive measures?
 
I wonder how many more years it’s going to be before the left stops complaining about the Iraq war. Saddam is out of power. Uday & Queball are dead. The Iraqis, with our help and others, are slowly pulling their country out of the dark abyss. No matter how fast or slowly it happens, the left will remain unsatisfied. No matter how prosperous Iraq becomes it won’t be enough. No matter how many Islamofacists blow themselves up it’s always going to be Bush’s fault.

I am thankful to God Almighty the Coalition removed Saddam from power and I hope the day comes when all tyrannical governments are replaced with representitive republics. I am sad so many complain that Saddam was removed the way he was removed and they would rather gripe and moan instead of being thankful another 25 million people have a great opportunity to build themselves a peaceful, prosperous nation.

Let me assure you, had the Clinton administration removed Saddam from power during the Impeachment trial in the Senate–I would’ve been 100% behind his decision and would have supported his policy as much as I have Bush43. May God continue to Bless America and may our nation never fail to act for the just cause of Freedom, at home and abroad.
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
The best way to bring about a peaceful Iran which does not export terrorism is to allow the Iranians to manage their own democratic evolution. The desire for democratic reform within Iran is strong. The best way to strengthen the Iranian mullahs is to do what we’re doing now: threatening “regime change”, or worse, a nuclear assault.

Negotiation is infinitely preferable to war; but you’ve got it exactly backwards. The issue in the OP is an unprovoked US strike against Iran. It is they who need protection from us in that scenario.

I don’t believe I ever said that, but the hatred did increase exponentially under GW Bush.
Click to expand...
In all three of your examples…we are basically to blame for terrorist acts against us…I have asked what do you think we should do and this is your answer…we should leave Islamofasists alone…Oh excuse me you dont like that word :rolleyes: we should leave the radical dictatorship nations of the religion of peace alone…is that PC enough for you? So in your world if we just ignore Iran the problem will solve itself…I am a realist I dont believe in your fantasy world. So if we would not have gone to Afghanistan or Iraq and would not back Israel…and GWB was not the President everything would be great the radical dictatorship nations of the religion of peace would be our friends and we would not have to worry about terrorists or Iran’s nuclear program it would only be for energy…:crying: why cant the world be that way…wake up and smell the coffee.
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
You’re wrong here. The UN inspectors were in Iraq up until a few days before the U.S. invaded.
Click to expand...
Ok, I thought he didn’t let them back in, or wasn’t permitting them the access they were suppose to have. Thanks.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
Ok, I thought he didn’t let them back in, or wasn’t permitting them the access they were suppose to have. Thanks.
Click to expand...
The problem was, even when they were in, they didn’t have access. Remeber the famous sattelite photos showing UN inspectors arriving at the front gate of a facility, and the Iraqis frantically loading trucks at the back and driving them out the back gate?
 
vern humphrey:
The problem was, even when they were in, they didn’t have access. Remember the famous sattelite photos showing UN inspectors arriving at the front gate of a facility, and the Iraqis frantically loading trucks at the back and driving them out the back gate?
Click to expand...
Yes, the UN inspections were a shell game.
 
So then they can’t be used as a basis for stating that no WMDs were ever found. And, if Iraq never had them, why were they frantically moving stuff out the back gate?

Don’t believe what the press tells you, they have an agenda also.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
So then they can’t be used as a basis for stating that no WMDs were ever found. And, if Iraq never had them, why were they frantically moving stuff out the back gate?

Don’t believe what the press tells you, they have an agenda also.
Click to expand...
They DID have WMD. The proofs are:
  1. They USED WMD on more than one occasion. They used them against the Kurds (their own people) and they used them against Iran.
  2. We captured and destroyed WMD during Desert Storm.
  3. They admitted they had WMD at the end of Desert Storm.
  4. The UN inspectors FOUND some WMD.
The problem was, the inspectors were not all that successful because of the shell game played on them.

Now, every intelligence agency in the world THOUGHT we would find WMD. Saddam Hussain himself thought he had WMD. And if we take the list of what the Iraqis admitted they had at the end of Desert Storm and cross off all that which the US and the inspectors found and destroyed – a heck of a lot is missing.
 
Deus Vult:
In all three of your examples…we are basically to blame for terrorist acts against us…
Click to expand...
“We”, meaning the innocent victims of terrorism, are NOT to blame for it. The terrorists themselves are to blame.

“We”, meaning our rulers, do share in the blame - by pursuing policies whose most likely effect is an increased likelihood of more attacks.

It appears you’ve internalized the value assumptions espoused by our rulers when they say "We" must stand firm in “our” resolve to stay the course in the war on terror. I’ve always thought it presumptious of our rulers to speak this way, surrounded as they are by armed guards 24 hours a day, bravely vowing to maintain their “resolve” whenever defenseless people are killed merely for going to work in the morning.
Deus Vult:
I have asked what do you think we should do and this is your answer…we should leave Islamofasists alone…Oh excuse me you dont like that word :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No, I don’t like that word, and I don’t like it because it’s meaningless as a descriptor of reality. Words that are not rooted in reality are meaningless. Communists (a former enemy) called themselves communists. There is a tangible body of political philosphy one can recognize as “communist”. The same holds for the Nazis. Ditto for traditional fascists.

Somebody explain to me the ideology of “Islamofascism”. Where is it espoused? What are its political tenets? Who are prominent “Islamofascists” who describe themselves as such?

This word is similar to another meaningless pseudo-word - homophobia. This one was concocted by homosexual activists who wanted to tar those who oppose the promotion of homosexual acts as having an irrational fear of homosexuals, thereby stifling debate over that issue.
Deus Vult:
we should leave the radical dictatorship nations of the religion of peace alone…is that PC enough for you?
Click to expand...
Actually, the so-called “radical” nations you refer to are some of the most backward “conservative” (in the sense of rigid and stagnant) regimes on earth. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and others, far frm being “radical”, are positively glacial in their feudalism. The only regime which could qualify as radical in the sense you offer is Iran, and their Shiite Islamic revolution hasn’t wowed any other Islamic countries, despite their 25 years of trying.
Deus Vult:
So in your world if we just ignore Iran the problem will solve itself…
Click to expand...
Yes, if we back off from threats of “regime change” and military confrontation, the Iranian mullahs will lose the one thing that keeps them strong - a beligerent “Great Satan” right next door. If the US removes its military from the region, they (the Iranians; Bin Laden; or their successors) can call for all the jihads they want. They will have nobody to do their fighting for them because nobody wants to wage a jihad against a distant enemy.

No doubt you’l answer that I am “appeasing” the terrorists. When France withdrew from Algeria, was that “appeasing terrorism”? When the British withdrew from Kenya, did that “appease” the Mau Mau terrorists? And by the way, nobody ever criticizes the British for “appeasing” the Irgun, Hagannah, and the Stern Gang by withdrawing from what is now Israel.
 
What a shell game looks like:







[

http://www.snopes.com/photos/small/mig04_small.jpg](http:///#photo04) What military search teams eventually found at al Taqqadum, in July 2003, were remnants of the Iraqi Air Force as pictured above: a reported 30 to 40 planes, including several MiG-25 and Su-25 ground attack jets, buried more than 10 feet beneath tons of soil and covered with camouflage netting. According to the Pentagon, at least one of the MiG-25s was found because searchers spotted its twin tail fins protruding from the sand. Some of the planes had been wrapped in plastic sheeting to protect their electronics and machinery from the sand (and some had had their wings removed), but others were interred with little or no protection from the sand or the elements. The recovery teams had to use large earth-moving equipment to uncover the aircraft.

ref:snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
So then they can’t be used as a basis for stating that no WMDs were ever found. And, if Iraq never had them, why were they frantically moving stuff out the back gate?

Don’t believe what the press tells you, they have an agenda also.
Click to expand...
Enlighten me. Has Joseph McCarthy been whispering in your ear?
 
Philip P:
Enlighten me. Has Joseph McCarthy been whispering in your ear?
Click to expand...
I wish he would. Especially since we’ve learned after the fall of the USSR he was right all along.
 
Philip P:
Enlighten me. Has Joseph McCarthy been whispering in your ear?
Click to expand...
What?

The press typically has a liberal, left wing bias. It has become a ratings game to see who can attract the most viewers/readers. If something isn’t sensational or shocking enough, they won’t report it.

How often has the news reported the number of schools we built in Iraq, work we’ve done to provide power, etc? But they sure are quick to but the picture of a fallen soldier and his children on the TV.

One has the shock value and will sway people in one direction. The other can sway people in the opposite direction but without the shock value and is contrary to what to broadcaster is trying to push.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
What?

The press typically has a liberal, left wing bias. It has become a ratings game to see who can attract the most viewers/readers. If something isn’t sensational or shocking enough, they won’t report it.
.
Click to expand...
If you don’t believe everything Dan Rather tells you, you’re automatically a McCarthyite.

Those memos about Bush are genuine.

Well, we can’t prove they’re genuine, but you can’t prove they’re not.

Well, okay, they’re not genuine – but everything they say is true.

Well, okay, we can’t prove what they say is true, but we believe it and that MAKES it true.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
vern humphrey:
If you don’t believe everything Dan Rather tells you, you’re automatically a McCarthyite.

Those memos about Bush are genuine.

Well, we can’t prove they’re genuine, but you can’t prove they’re not.

Well, okay, they’re not genuine – but everything they say is true.

Well, okay, we can’t prove what they say is true, but we believe it and that MAKES it true.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Click to expand...
Don’t forget that those old documents look better when printed from a laserjet printer. Easier to read the incriminating evidence. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
thestickman:
I wish he would. Especially since we’ve learned after the fall of the USSR he was right all along.
Click to expand...
Thou tookest the words right out of my mouth --🙂 – something else the MSM doesn’t want to cover in American newspapers – I loved it when the Russian ardchives came out about Alger Hiss and a few others. I waited and waited and waited for major coverage – got bupkis.
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
Thou tookest the words right out of my mouth --🙂 – something else the MSM doesn’t want to cover in American newspapers – I loved it when the Russian ardchives came out about Alger Hiss and a few others. I waited and waited and waited for major coverage – got bupkis.
Click to expand...
That would be like CBS doing a story on how the Bush memos were forged.

The MSM loudly proclaimed Alger Hiss was innocent – think they’re going to admit their error?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top