Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, Aug 19, 2004.
link to the nyt
And a powerfull, resounding "I TOLD YOU SO" echoes off the walls of the White House.
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...
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.
Welcome to the New World Order.
definetly a case of "told you so"
i can imagine the grin he had after that interview....that line already made my day
Knowing that Iran has more than rotten tomatoes (unlike Saddam) to throw back will definitely prevent an attack.
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
Well, they've had years to bring anything they wanted to into the States in the Diplomatic Bag. No problem there.
what do you mean? i'm dumb. explain yourself.
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...
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.
Hmm, I seem to remember a failed rescue attempt. Faulty memory, I guess.
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?
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.
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.
Does that include Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam?
Whatever that means. Your original statement stands contradicted.
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.
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
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.
ah, but it isn't state sponsored terror.
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.
Oh, I see. World War III would not have been too high a price.
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.
"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.