Is Iran Next?

[MikeWM]

Ah, I missed your previous post. And to overthrow the Hussein regime. Well, that has been achieved, for sure.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

Actually it is, because what you offered wasn’t an analogy at all. I said ‘there aren’t always’ and you offered one example back. Well, yes, but that doesn’t show ‘there aren’t always’, in the slightest.

Ah, yes – if it doesn’t ALWAYS happen, it doesn’t EVER happen.

MikeWM:

Have strict conditions on who we sell arms to? Seems a reasonable start.

We do have strict conditions – what changes would you suggest?

MikeWM:

I would assume all the arms Saddam received went to the general armed forces. I somehow doubt he dogmatically threw away the weapons that originated in the US just because he was suddenly under attack by them.

So, what US-supplied weapons did he use against us?

MikeWM:

What were the ‘strategic aims’ then? Overthrow Saddam? Establishing a better society? Finding WMD? Reducing international terrorism? And which of these were we told were the aims back in March 2003?

Mike

Does the phrase “regime change” ring a bell?

And when you say “we,” do you mean classified briefings to Congress?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Deus_Vult]

MikeWM:

Yeah, that’ll be about the time we were supporting and arming Saddam Hussein.

Mike

Your right and hopefully we learned from that mistake…radical Islam will never be our friend…and the countries like Iran that support them.

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

Ah, yes – if it doesn’t ALWAYS happen, it doesn’t EVER happen.

That was your incorrect implication from what I said, yes.

We do have strict conditions – what changes would you suggest?

Hmm. Would you call Iraq in the early 80s a paragon of virtue? Probably not. So not that strict.

So, what US-supplied weapons did he use against us?

Many of the chemical weapons that he employed against his own people, Iran, and possibly the US in the first Gulf War, were given him by the USA.

Does the phrase “regime change” ring a bell?

Ah yes, that will be the thing that is illegal under international law.

And when you say “we,” do you mean classified briefings to Congress?

Not at all - but that document mentions a lot of the UN, for example, who were later ignored.

Mike

 

[thestickman]

MikeWM:

Ah yes, that will be the thing that is illegal under international law.

Please share with us where this international law is kept. Who wrote it? Who enforces it? If it’s violated, who writes the ticket? Decides the punishment if found guilty?

 

[MikeWM]

thestickman:

Please share with us where this international law is kept. Who wrote it? Who enforces it? If it’s violated, who writes the ticket? Decides the punishment if found guilty?

Yep, that pretty much fits the stereotype of the American attitude to international law. Shame though, I was kinda hoping it was just a stereotype

Mike

 

[thestickman]

MikeWM:

Yep, that pretty much fits the stereotype of the American attitude to international law. Shame though, I was kinda hoping it was just a stereotype

Mike

Stereotypes notwithstanding if you can’t answer those pertinent questions it proves you either don’t know the answers or that there is no such thing as international law.

So feel free to share with us the answers to these questions: Please share with us where this international law is kept. Who wrote it? Who enforces it? If it’s violated, who writes the ticket? Decides the punishment if found guilty?

Remember, comments about whether I’m a stereotypical American or not aren’t answers to the questions.

 

[mjdonnelly]

It is only illegal to speciffically target heads of state. Not change the government after they have lost a war.

 

[MikeWM]

thestickman:

Stereotypes notwithstanding if you can’t answer those pertinent questions it proves you either don’t know the answers or that there is no such thing as international law.

So feel free to share with us the answers to these questions: Please share with us where this international law is kept. Who wrote it? Who enforces it? If it’s violated, who writes the ticket? Decides the punishment if found guilty?

Remember, comments about whether I’m a stereotypical American or not aren’t answers to the questions.

I’m not going to do your homework for you, but this article

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

might be a start.

Mike

 

[gnjsdad]

Deus Vult:

So in your opinion Iran is our friend? Did you forget the 52 hostages they took…Oh but maybe it made it ok because they gave them back…Jan. 20, 1981…and oh yeh that was such a long time ago. Since when has Iran been our good neighbor?

No, I wouldn’t call Iran a friend. But your reaction to my OP is interesting. The OP dealt with possible plans being drawn up to use nuclear weapons on a country which might not even have attacked us 9/11-style. You chose to post a photo apparently as a justification for such a response. The photo does not have any Iranians. But maybe that makes no difference to you? Iranians, Iraqis, Arabs, Persians, Shiites, Sunnis, what’s the difference? Nuke 'em all?

 

[Deus_Vult]

gnjsdad:

No, I wouldn’t call Iran a friend. But your reaction to my OP is interesting. The OP dealt with possible plans being drawn up to use nuclear weapons on a country which might not even have attacked us 9/11-style. You chose to post a photo apparently as a justification for such a response. The photo does not have any Iranians. But maybe that makes no difference to you? Iranians, Iraqis, Arabs, Persians, Shiites, Sunnis, what’s the difference? Nuke 'em all?

Excuse me…what is it a picture of then? I googled the picture…do you know something I dont? Is it the wrong hostage picture? Maybe you know the guy holding the assault rifle?

 

[gnjsdad]

Deus Vult:

Excuse me…what is it a picture of then? I googled the picture…do you know something I dont? Is it the wrong hostage picture? Maybe you know the guy holding the assault rifle?

You posted the photo. You tell us what it has to do with possibly nuking Iran.

 

[Deus_Vult]

gnjsdad:

You posted the photo. You tell us what it has to do with possibly nuking Iran.

Its a picture of the hostages in 1981…my point was they have proven before not to be trusted. If nuclear weapons are deemed necassary to attack Iran than so be it…but I am sure it would be a last resort.

 

[gnjsdad]

Deus Vult:

Its a picture of the hostages in 1981…my point was they have proven before not to be trusted. If nuclear weapons are deemed necassary to attack Iran than so be it…but I am sure it would be a last resort.

But the possibility brought up in the OP was that it precisely would not be a last resort. Another 9/11-type attack would be met with a nuclear response against Iran even if Iran was not responsible for the attack.

 

[Snicker]

**Well done, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Washington weirdoes. They have succeeded where others have failed. From the tilting deck of their sinking ship they can truly claim ‘Mission Accomplished’, because they have forged amity out of enmity. Their crusade has drawn two countries together, and for this they must be given credit.

Unfortunately for Cheney-Bush foreign policy, the countries that have been drawn together and are establishing a military, religious and economic alliance are Iraq and Iran. The first of these is not totally grateful to the US, which invaded it and reduced it to chaos, while the second is just a tad anti-American because Bush Washington has been waging a campaign of vilification, insult and subversion against it since the macho War President proclaimed it a member of his Axis of Evil on January 29, 2002.**
counterpunch.org/cloughley07302005.html

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

That was your incorrect implication from what I said, yes.

Are you not responsible for what you say?

MikeWM:

Hmm. Would you call Iraq in the early 80s a paragon of virtue? Probably not. So not that strict.

This comment reinforces my contention, and shows the “incorrect implication” was in fact correct.

Do you hold that we should have alliances only with "paragons of virtue? Only nations that are perfect?

MikeWM:

Many of the chemical weapons that he employed against his own people, Iran, and possibly the US in the first Gulf War, were given him by the USA.

That accusation is so fantastic that you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.

MikeWM:

Ah yes, that will be the thing that is illegal under international law.

Oh? We were wrong to depose the Nazis from power? To kick out the Kaiser? To unseat Jefferson Davis?

Where do you get these wild accusations?

MikeWM:

Not at all - but that document mentions a lot of the UN, for example, who were later ignored.

Mike

That would be the same UN whose crooked officials were helping Saddam use the Oil for Food program to buy weapons?

 

[2shelbys]

Well done, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Washington weirdoes. They have succeeded where others have failed. From the tilting deck of their sinking ship they can truly claim ‘Mission Accomplished’, because they have forged amity out of enmity. Their crusade has drawn two countries together, and for this they must be given credit.

Unfortunately for Cheney-Bush foreign policy, the countries that have been drawn together and are establishing a military, religious and economic alliance are Iraq and Iran. The first of these is not totally grateful to the US, which invaded it and reduced it to chaos, while the second is just a tad anti-American because Bush Washington has been waging a campaign of vilification, insult and subversion against it since the macho War President proclaimed it a member of his Axis of Evil on January 29, 2002.
counterpunch.org/cloughley07302005.html

You should really be embarrassed for quoting this idiocy, unless of course you were trying to expose it as such. Here is some more typically paranoid, unfounded nonsense from the far leftist who wrote this article:

The first of these is not totally grateful to the US, which invaded it and reduced it to chaos (meaning Iraq)

To belive this you have to still be foolish enough to have faith in the accuracy of American major media and you have to ignore the fact that 95% of Iraq is stable and has been since the Hussein government fell. The violence is limited to essentially pockets in two cities.

while the second is just a tad anti-American because Bush Washington has been waging a campaign of vilification, insult and subversion against it since the macho War President proclaimed it a member of his Axis of Evil

Apparantly this guy thinks Iran just loved us before GWB was in office? How can he say this stuff without feeling like an idiot?

None of their governments (including Iraq under Saddam Hussein) is on record as supporting terrorism against the United States.Bush’s words were as malignant as they were moronic.

As though countries go “on the record” about supporting such things? You pay attention to what they do, not what they say. The only moron here is the author, Brian Cloughley.

It appears the White House and the Pentagon imagined that immediately after the wonderful victory over a country that didn’t have a single combat airplane or a tank under thirty years old there would automatically be a client state run by grateful Iraqis who would then welcome US oil companies to take over their birthright.

Another moronic, ridiculously unfounded leftist talking point. Both GWB and Rumsfeld have said from the very beginning that this would be an effort that would not only take years but that it would most likely outlast his administration. Oh, and Iraq does have some of the most advanced Soviet weaponry available including Mig 29s. But it is understandable how an anti-military leftist would be ignorant of military issues.

It is now apparent that Iran is very happy indeed to offer what assistance it can to its co-religionists across the border

And here he contradicts himself about whether Iran supports terrorists!

During his visit to Tehran in early July Iraq’s defense minister said “We have come to our Iranian brothers to ask them for help and we have not yet started on the more sensitive issues”.

Yes, asking for help to fight terrorists, not Americans (as this moron implies), and the “sensitive issues” are that Iran is involved in what the Iraqis are trying to fight.

His Iranian counterpart announced that his country would “help train, rebuild and modernize the Iraqi army” (it couldn’t do a worse job than is presently being done)

More American soldier-bashing from the left.

To the dismay of many of Corporate America’s high mucky-mucks who paid big money to buy the Cheney-Bush White House

This leftist talking point is so old, and so blatantly illustrates how un-informed the author is about American politics that it is pathetic. “Corporate America” gives huge money to BOTH parties and always has. Is this guy the only person left who does not realize that the old “Republicans love big business while the Democrats love the little guy” nonsense stopped working decades ago?

I could go on and on quoting the absolute idiocy in this article but why bother? It would be a waste of space.

 

[Deus_Vult]

gnjsdad:

But the possibility brought up in the OP was that it precisely would not be a last resort. Another 9/11-type attack would be met with a nuclear response against Iran even if Iran was not responsible for the attack.

So in your opinion should Iran be left alone? Are you not concerned about Iran’s nuclear enrichment program? Are all Islamofascist regimes our good neighbors in your world?Stop listening to the leftist rhetoric you have been listening…who say what they say for political reasons only no matter how harmful it is to our nation…and think about it for a moment. Should we be concerned about a nuclear enrichment program in Iran? Should we trust the UN and or EU to be of much assistance or should we protect ourselves at all costs? I hate to see anyone die in war but ignoring the problem will result in many more innocent lives lost mainly American lives so I and most Americans dont want to role over and ignore these issues…and this junk about these nations not hating us before Bush is ridiculous…hence the photo I sent …Islamofascists hate all Christian nations even though we have open arms to the world and its religions. Iran has a very powerful armed forces and if tactical nuclear weapons are necessary as I said before so be it. Iran does not have to go to war…they should consider what Libya opted to do. If Iran chooses to go forward with this program the blood is on their hands.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

MikeWM:

I’m not going to do your homework for you

Do his homework for him? You made the claim. The onus is on you to do the homework.

MikeWM:

but this article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law might be a start. Mike

Thanks for the link.

 

[MikeWM]

Ani Ibi:

Do his homework for him? You made the claim. The onus is on you to do the homework.

That international law exists? Surely there are some things so rudimentary and obvious that I can assume they are known? Do I have to prove that the President of the United States is called George Bush, or that there is a thing called a Constitution? We must be able to assume some basic knowledge, else we’ll never get further than defining things.

Mike