The Unravelling Begins

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, Aug 19, 2004.

  1. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #1
    link to the nyt

    And a powerfull, resounding "I TOLD YOU SO" echoes off the walls of the White House.
     
  2. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #2
    pre-emptive how? Now Iran is a power in the ME, but I do not see what they would do in terms of aggressive maneuvers...

    ...oh whatever, it is all a bloody clusterf**k anyway...great.


    Guess I have to cancel my vacation to Tehran...
     
  3. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    from the article:
    great. so an israeli attack on an iranian nuclear facility, or threat thereof, gives a green light for an attack on an american facility? nice "leadership," bush.

    the ones who have the most to lose, will lose.
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  5. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #5
    haha LOL

    definetly a case of "told you so"

    i can imagine the grin he had after that interview....that line already made my day
     
  6. Chappers macrumors 68020

    Chappers

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Location:
    At home
    #6
    Knowing that Iran has more than rotten tomatoes (unlike Saddam) to throw back will definitely prevent an attack.
     
  7. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #7
    well, bush can be blamed for the pre-emptive attack thing that is going around... but he is hardly the only one who unabashedly supports israel and all it does...

    so how does everyone think they would strike the US specifically? in iraq makes the most sense i guess. otherwise they'd be hitting their own neighbors (ie, if they struck US forces in saudi arabia or kuwait or something)... hmm
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Well, they've had years to bring anything they wanted to into the States in the Diplomatic Bag. No problem there.
     
  9. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #9
    what do you mean? i'm dumb. explain yourself. :)
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    I don't really need to, do I? Any number of small nucular devices, dirty bombs, chemical agents, anything in fact which an accredited member of the Axis of Evil™ might want to use, could have been brought into Washington at any time by any Iranian diplomat, without being checked at any stage. If they thought they might ever need it...
     
  11. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #11
    HA, the Iranians get a tad upset and it is Bush's fault. Wow, that is some lazy logic.

    Look, Iran has had their mits in crap for a long time. What about when they took our hostages. That alone should have brought an invasion form the US. However, Jimmy "let me hug a tree" Carter did not have the smarts to let the military go in.

    Iran is next, make no mistake about it. If they have nukes. We need to go in and remove that threat. Period. Whether it is ground forces, or just air power, that threat must be removed.
     
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    Hmm, I seem to remember a failed rescue attempt. Faulty memory, I guess.
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    No, it's Bush's pre-emptive attack doctrine that's let the cat out of the bag.

    Iran was plunged into crap by the CIA-backed coup which installed the Shah and his SAVAK secret police.

    Does that apply to everyone with nukes?
     
  14. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #14
    Yea, a failed rescure attempt because Carter would not listen to the military. I know. Those choppers came from a base in my home town. My neighbor, his dad was on one of the birds. It was a very rough time for us as a community expecially when the commanders there told the administration that it was a death trap.
     
  15. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #15
    Well, lets see. Do you really think that if we had not gone into Iraq that Iran would have a different goal. Come on. The radical secs of Iran overthrough the Shah, and even today the PEOPLE of Iran don't want their current government.

    It applies to ever nation with ties to terrorism that has nukes. Yes.
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    Does that include Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam? ;)
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    Whatever that means. Your original statement stands contradicted.
     
  18. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #18
    He let his people design a resuce attempt that was guaranteed to fail. He should have gone in with everything.

    That was my poin. Not contradicted.
     
  19. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #19
    so when does pakistan get invaded ? (they already tested their nuclear weapons so there is no speculation about it)...or are they safe because they are your allieds ?

    how about china ? last time i cheked the maoistic terrorists in nepal had pretty obvious ties to them
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    No, it was not your point, because it was not what you said, which was:
    Whether it succeeded or failed is not relevant. He did launch a military effort. So your statement is incorrect on the face of it. It would behoove you to admit your error and move on, instead of trying to alter your original claim to fit the facts.

    If you are suggesting that Carter should have staged a full-scale invasion of Iran in 1979, then you are inventing a world that did not exist at the time.
     
  21. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #21
    ah, but it isn't state sponsored terror.
     
  22. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #22
    No, that was my point. Carter launched a rescue effort, not a military response of invasion, and you are right, the world did not exist because Carter was too much of a coward to make it exist. Don't assume that you understand the complete meaning of my point based on the interpretation of one sentance. Sure, I will admit that I could have been more complete in the flow of the arguement. Sorry.

    The point was, Carter did not send in the military to destroy the government of Iran, instead, he launched a half hearted effort of rescue that doomed those that undertook the mission.
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    Oh, I see. World War III would not have been too high a price.
     
  24. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #24

    Well, we don't know 100% that that would have been the case, but we can asume that it would have been. Personally, we should have requested Israel's help in the matter or gone in with full invasion and regime change.

    However, guess what, WWIII is now, we are in it. Like it or not. Us, and our coaltion are fighting WWIII right now.
     
  25. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    "Our coalition" is presiding over a god-awful mess of their own making. This is NOT a World War. This is a military and political adventure.
     

Share This Page