Iran may have crossed the West's red line - Obama must act

[_Simpson_ 250]

You guys got 'crucified' because they were no where near being a threat to anyone, least of all the US. You also got 'crucified' because you didn't have a plan with how to deal with a defeated Iraq that would produce a country that would be stable and 'friendly' in the broadest sense of the word. In other words, simply wanting to get rid of things you don't like is not a 'plan'.

I do find it interesting that those who like to play war are not that keen this time around...

We got crucified because the intelligence we had and had gathered from other countries was not accurate. I believe a lot of this had to do with Saddam wanting us to think he was close to having nuclear capability. I point this out to put things in perspective so that hopefully some of the haters will see that we shouldn't of been "crucified" they way we were. Often on this issue anger is misguided IMO.

As far as having a plan, we had a plan but not the right one. Our fault. I don't think we took into consideration the way the other middle eastern countries would take part in this by funding terrorist activities, we should of seen that and that was our mistake. Nevertheless we have seen our mistakes, we're are working on them and things are getting better in Iraq.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Having nuclear bombs doesn't mean they'll use it.

But, Iran learn by history. Once they reached annihilation within their borders, they'll gladly denounce their existence.

[doodlebugg 10]

[ Worryingly, there are signs that the US is drifting towards accepting Iran as nuclear power. Note, Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about extending the US nuclear umbrella to its allies in the region. If Israel decides that the United States will not act, it may well decide to take matters into its own hands. Understandably, it is deeply opposed to the patron of two terrorists groups that attack it repeatedly acquiring nuclear weapons.

Link

So Israel who murders hundreds (thousands if they get trigger happy like in the last war in Gaza) of innocent men, women and children each year get to have nukes but Iran doesn't? And freakin' Israel is going to do something about it? This world is flippin' nuts. I want to move to some island where I don't get the news.

Iran use to be one of our closest allies prior to 1978, then something switched, they let us install long range radar to peek at what the USSR was doing. Did the people change or did the leadership change?

Something switched, um yeah. We overtook their gov't and put someone in there who would cater to our needs, as usual, and suprisingly enough the population didn't like that and revolted. Perhaps if we had stayed away from the beginning we wouldn't be up sh!ts creek without a paddle, again.

[_Simpson_ 250]

So Israel who murders hundreds (thousands if they get trigger happy like in the last war in Gaza) of innocent men, women and children each year get to have nukes but Iran doesn't? And freakin' Israel is going to do something about it? This world is flippin' nuts. I want to move to some island where I don't get the news.

Israel is not a dictatorship, you're comparing apples to oranges.

[luckytxn 2,264]

You guys got 'crucified' because they were no where near being a threat to anyone, least of all the US. You also got 'crucified' because you didn't have a plan with how to deal with a defeated Iraq that would produce a country that would be stable and 'friendly' in the broadest sense of the word. In other words, simply wanting to get rid of things you don't like is not a 'plan'.

I do find it interesting that those who like to play war are not that keen this time around...

We got crucified because the intelligence we had and had gathered from other countries was not accurate. I believe a lot of this had to do with Saddam wanting us to think he was close to having nuclear capability. I point this out to put things in perspective so that hopefully some of the haters will see that we shouldn't of been "crucified" they way we were. Often on this issue anger is misguided IMO.

As far as having a plan, we had a plan but not the right one. Our fault. I don't think we took into consideration the way the other middle eastern countries would take part in this by funding terrorist activities, we should of seen that and that was our mistake. Nevertheless we have seen our mistakes, we're are working on them and things are getting better in Iraq.

Doesn't matter if he was getting Nukes. We have no right to go in there to stop it. When he invaded Kuwait why did we have to go there and kick him out?

[_Simpson_ 250]

You guys got 'crucified' because they were no where near being a threat to anyone, least of all the US. You also got 'crucified' because you didn't have a plan with how to deal with a defeated Iraq that would produce a country that would be stable and 'friendly' in the broadest sense of the word. In other words, simply wanting to get rid of things you don't like is not a 'plan'.

I do find it interesting that those who like to play war are not that keen this time around...

We got crucified because the intelligence we had and had gathered from other countries was not accurate. I believe a lot of this had to do with Saddam wanting us to think he was close to having nuclear capability. I point this out to put things in perspective so that hopefully some of the haters will see that we shouldn't of been "crucified" they way we were. Often on this issue anger is misguided IMO.

As far as having a plan, we had a plan but not the right one. Our fault. I don't think we took into consideration the way the other middle eastern countries would take part in this by funding terrorist activities, we should of seen that and that was our mistake. Nevertheless we have seen our mistakes, we're are working on them and things are getting better in Iraq.

Doesn't matter if he was getting Nukes. We have no right to go in there to stop it. When he invaded Kuwait why did we have to go there and kick him out?

Well sure it does matter if he is getting nukes, mad man with nukes that has a deep hatred for the USA is a recipe for disaster. About Kuwait I have never been the passive type and have no desire to watch the world go to hell in a handbag. We did the right thing in Kuwait and need to keep doing the right thing even though we live in a thankless world.

Edited August 4, 2009 by looking_up

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I rather doubt the US went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons either in 2003 or 1991. Its to do with the geopolitics of the MENA region and the constant state of non-stop maneouvering by prevailing world empires since (at least) the turn of the 20th century.

[doodlebugg 10]

So Israel who murders hundreds (thousands if they get trigger happy like in the last war in Gaza) of innocent men, women and children each year get to have nukes but Iran doesn't? And freakin' Israel is going to do something about it? This world is flippin' nuts. I want to move to some island where I don't get the news.

Israel is not a dictatorship, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Well Iran is not a dictatorship either, it's a theocracy. I fail to see how that factors in on who gets the nukes.

[luckytxn 2,264]

You guys got 'crucified' because they were no where near being a threat to anyone, least of all the US. You also got 'crucified' because you didn't have a plan with how to deal with a defeated Iraq that would produce a country that would be stable and 'friendly' in the broadest sense of the word. In other words, simply wanting to get rid of things you don't like is not a 'plan'.

I do find it interesting that those who like to play war are not that keen this time around...

We got crucified because the intelligence we had and had gathered from other countries was not accurate. I believe a lot of this had to do with Saddam wanting us to think he was close to having nuclear capability. I point this out to put things in perspective so that hopefully some of the haters will see that we shouldn't of been "crucified" they way we were. Often on this issue anger is misguided IMO.

As far as having a plan, we had a plan but not the right one. Our fault. I don't think we took into consideration the way the other middle eastern countries would take part in this by funding terrorist activities, we should of seen that and that was our mistake. Nevertheless we have seen our mistakes, we're are working on them and things are getting better in Iraq.

Doesn't matter if he was getting Nukes. We have no right to go in there to stop it. When he invaded Kuwait why did we have to go there and kick him out?

Well sure it does matter if he is getting nukes, mad man with nukes that has a deep hatred for the USA is a recipe for disaster. About Kuwait I have never been the passive type and have no desire to watch the world go to hell in a handbag. We did the right thing in Kuwait and need to keep doing the right thing even though we live in a thankless world.

No it does not. Stalin and Mao were considered madmen with a hatred for us and we didn't go invade them or stop them. Saddam had a hatred it seems for his neighbor Iran and didn't seem too kind to his other neighbors but he actually seemed to want our friendship. It is very costly to wage war and become an occupation force and rebuild countries. Money that could be better spent at home here. Japan is a very rich nation and so is S. Korea and most of Europe where we still maintain bases. We need to bring all our troops home and stop sending our money abroad to other nations.

[_Simpson_ 250]

So Israel who murders hundreds (thousands if they get trigger happy like in the last war in Gaza) of innocent men, women and children each year get to have nukes but Iran doesn't? And freakin' Israel is going to do something about it? This world is flippin' nuts. I want to move to some island where I don't get the news.

Israel is not a dictatorship, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Well Iran is not a dictatorship either, it's a theocracy. I fail to see how that factors in on who gets the nukes.

Lets pretend for a second that Israel is as evil as you think it is, are you trying to make the argument that because they have nukes Iran also should be able to or are you saying we should take Israels nukes away? Israel has them Iran doesn't that just the way it is and it makes a whole lot of sense to make sure Iran doesn't get nukes.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I rather doubt the US went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons either in 2003 or 1991. Its to do with the geopolitics of the MENA region and the constant state of non-stop maneouvering by prevailing world empires since (at least) the turn of the 20th century.

The coalition went in there(1991) for many reasons and to help the people were one of them.

Edited August 4, 2009 by looking_up

[_Simpson_ 250]

No it does not. Stalin and Mao were considered madmen with a hatred for us and we didn't go invade them or stop them. Saddam had a hatred it seems for his neighbor Iran and didn't seem too kind to his other neighbors but he actually seemed to want our friendship. It is very costly to wage war and become an occupation force and rebuild countries. Money that could be better spent at home here. Japan is a very rich nation and so is S. Korea and most of Europe where we still maintain bases. We need to bring all our troops home and stop sending our money abroad to other nations.

Let rewind here, I agree to a point. I think we do need to start bringing our troops home, from certain countries.

I don't think invading in Iraq was a good move, which is obvious now knowing that the intelligence we had was incorrect.

Gulf war was the right thing to do, we went into to a country with a coalition to help people that wanted our help, also we and others had interests to protect.

I don't support policing the world by no means but we have our security to be concerned with and if its threatened we need to take action.

[Pooky 3,784]

No it does not. Stalin and Mao were considered madmen with a hatred for us and we didn't go invade them or stop them. Saddam had a hatred it seems for his neighbor Iran and didn't seem too kind to his other neighbors but he actually seemed to want our friendship. It is very costly to wage war and become an occupation force and rebuild countries. Money that could be better spent at home here. Japan is a very rich nation and so is S. Korea and most of Europe where we still maintain bases. We need to bring all our troops home and stop sending our money abroad to other nations.

Don't think the West wasn't tempted (Russia in '45, China during the Korean War). But there's being tempted and having a reasonable chance of victory. In neither case was there any likelihood of a Western victory without resorting to nuclear weapons from the outset, and even then it wasn't a clear advantage, nor could it be rationalised as the actions of a civilised world.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Pooky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I rather doubt the US went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons either in 2003 or 1991. Its to do with the geopolitics of the MENA region and the constant state of non-stop maneouvering by prevailing world empires since (at least) the turn of the 20th century.

The coalition went in there(1991) for many reasons and to help the people were one of them.

Yeah - and I bet we went into Vietnam to "help the people" too

[_Simpson_ 250]

I rather doubt the US went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons either in 2003 or 1991. Its to do with the geopolitics of the MENA region and the constant state of non-stop maneouvering by prevailing world empires since (at least) the turn of the 20th century.

The coalition went in there(1991) for many reasons and to help the people were one of them.

Yeah - and I bet we went into Vietnam to "help the people" too

Nope but that just would of been a nice bonus.

Edited August 4, 2009 by looking_up