COMMENTS:
I thought the americans had their hands full with iraq?
by aya on Mon Jan 17, 05 2:41pm
[+]
Uh, NO.
We're over-extended in two countries right now, shaky on our own homefront in security, and gearing up to provide aid to the tsunami victims. We don't have the resources. Anyone with intelligence could see that. But I forget of whom I speak...
Putting all that aside is that a good reason to invade?
by ABC on Mon Jan 17, 05 2:44pm
[+]
No.
1. Who proclaimed us Policeman of the World?
2. They are not a threat to my country
3. We have nuclear weapons; how hypocritical is that?!?
4. Our military is already stretched thin due to ill-considered decisions along thes elines
Korea is also persuing a nuclear program, does that mean the US will invade that country too. I have a better suggestion, why doesnt the world invade the US give them a taste of thier own medicine.
I dont like the idea of nuclear weapons being in the hands of religious lunatics with a leader that is clearly the wrong side of sanity and accelerating!
So if America do decide to invade Iran perhaps we can go and steal them while their away!
We shouldn't invade. We should bomb their nuclear production facilities. And make it clear that if they are rebuilt we'll do the same.
Dictators shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons.
And those of you who think we should do nothing, do you honestly believe that iran should have nuclear weapons? Would the political fallout from our bombing their reactors be worse than the fallout from one of our cities going up in smoke? These guys openly support terrorists, they don't even bother to deny it, that's somewhat disturbing.
herzog: Rampant paranoia aside ...
Iran is not a military threat to the US.
And if we didn't have such an asanine non-diplomacy policy (anyone who isn't with us is against us), we wouldn't have to fear other countries who aren't pitifully militarily weak against us. We could {shudder} talk with them.
Yes, that does mena we could no longer act like we can walk over everyone else.
Small price to pay, I say.
PS: You fooled us once with the "Do you want the first smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" argument ... shame on you. Fool us twice ...
"Dictators shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons.
by herzog"
You ever thought of doiong stand up???
When Mobsie stated :- 'I dont like the idea of nuclear weapons being in the hands of religious lunatics with a leader that is clearly the wrong side of sanity and accelerating!'
I was half expecting him to name the current US administration, imagine my surprise, when it was a totally different tack altogether, lol.
It'll save having to invade the good ol USA
Which i definitely would support
Cath: what paranoia? The notion that they are developing nukes? No, they've admitted that. The insane claim that they hate america? No, they have admitted that as well. Their clearly defined ties to terrorist organizations who also hate america? No, that's pretty much universally accepted. The theory that they are currently working with those terrorists against the US? That again has come into the full light of day.
So where is the senseless paranoia? It's not paranoid to say someone is out to get you if they *really* are out to get you.
No -- just because Iran has nukes doesn't mean they'll attack America. Russia had nukes for years and years and never attacked America. North Korea has nukes, and they're not attacking us. Iran is not aggressively pursuing an attack on America.
Umm no. What makes the US so special that they can have nukes, yet another country can't develop them? It's a double standard.
" I dont like the idea of nuclear weapons being in the hands of religious lunatics with a leader that is clearly the wrong side of sanity and accelerating! "
Bush is a religious lunatic on the wrong side of sanity. Everyone knows that.
Um it was a joke jigsaw! I meant bush! hence "So if America do decide to invade Iran perhaps we can go and steal them while their away! "
"Would the political fallout from our bombing their reactors be worse than the fallout from one of our cities going up in smoke?"
Very similar to Condi Dogface's comment about smoking guns turning into mushroom clouds. her-blog's just a lying fearmonger, drumming up support (or just acceptance) of another attack that was planned in advance of 9/11.
You're looking increasingly desperate and pathetic, her-blog. Keep going, you'll be hilarious soon.
herzog:
1. Our NeoCon policies are fueling hatred of America like nothing else. Stop the policies, we stop fomenting the hatred.
2. Everyone with a nuke is not going to us eit, especially offensively. Half the people pursuing them are desperate for defense.
3. Iran doesn't have a delivery system to reach us.
4. If we want to stop everyone in teh world who may not like us from having nukes ... well, we'll have to stop everyone in the world from having nukes.
5. IMO, this all stems from the bully-syndrome that we want things all our way and don't want to compromise. We see all disagreement as threat. If this country were an individual, it should be committed and be on therapy and medication. We see threats everywhere ... because we can't discriminate between threats and disagreements.
We also have selective memory ... all we see are peopel pissed off at us. But we conveniently forget ...
* The puppet dictators we set up and supported ... (e.g., Iran, Iraq, Latin America ...)
* The aggressive actions we took against other areas ... often at teh behest of some special interest or corporation (oil companies, fruit companies ... you name it).
* All of the times we give lip service to global community but continue to act unilaterally (and in our own, limited interest -- and usually at the expense of someone else).
So there are people ticked off at us? DUH! The answer is not to try to militarily overpower anyone who doesn't fall into line.
Some superpower irresponsibly names your country as a member of a so-called Axis of Evil and you wouldn't want to obtain the strongest defenses possible? Puh-leez!
Bush gets us into these messes -- not the other countries.
NO! I am sick and frickin tired of W. and his damn cowboy mentality. There is going to be a revolt in this country if he tries to do anything remotely close to invading!! Everyone I have talked to is against the idea...everyone! If W. cannot and will not listen to the people, then it is time that he and his entire war mongering liars go! I for one am approaching the dragt age and let me clear, unless he stops these acts of unprovoked agression, I will invoke my dual citizenship and leave. I love the US becuase of the American people--who are very warm and kind. I think W. may very wel be the worst President we have had in a very, very long time.
Dictators shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons.
by herzog on Jan 17, 2005
You're right Herzie, that is why George W. Bush should not have any access to our nuclear weapons. Glad you see the light. :)
'1. Our NeoCon policies are fueling hatred of America like nothing else. Stop the policies, we stop fomenting the hatred'
And was it the neo-con politics of clinton that led to the largest terrorist attack on american soil in our history? Because you know the idea was concieved under his administration, in light of his foreign policy.
'2. Everyone with a nuke is not going to us eit, especially offensively. Half the people pursuing them are desperate for defense.'
Not everyone with a gun is going to use it, does that mean we should hand them out to mentally unstable psycopaths who have stated their intent to use them?
'3. Iran doesn't have a delivery system to reach us.'
Neither did the koreans, until they built one. They don't need the technological know-how, or the industrial base to build any of these things. The soviets built their nuclear reactors, and they could easily buy rockets from china, or north korea, france, etc. All they need is money, like from say a huge oil reserve, and the desire to do so. They clearly have one of those, and I'd rather not trust to the mullahs good intentions for my safety thank you.
Besides, al qaeda didn't have any planes of their own, did it stop them from using ours against us? How hard is it to place a nuke in a cargo ship and have it dock in oh say new york? They don't check for these things, it's impossible really, and that would easily wipe out several million americans with no way to trace who did it. Still think it's a good idea to give dictators unfettered access to nuclear weapons?
'4. If we want to stop everyone in teh world who may not like us from having nukes ... well, we'll have to stop everyone in the world from having nukes.'
Like I said earlier, some people can be trusted with guns, some can't. Democratic nations can be trusted, regardless of how they feel about us, dictators can't, regardless of how they feel about us.
'5. IMO, this all stems from the bully-syndrome that we want things all our way and don't want to compromise'
So if someone's pointing a gun at your head and you want them to move it away you're the bully?
Patch: bush was clearly elected, all mindless rhetoric to the side. Even kerry acknowledged this fact. He is limited by congress and the constitution, notice you haven't been hauled away to the gulags for saying something bad about him?
No, they've admitted that. The insane claim that they hate america? by Herzog
yeah, well why do they hate America? Ever wonder what we have done to provoke that hate?? As far as that line of logic: Our president declared them to be part of the "axis of evil." COME ON! How absurd and ridiculous was that!? he lost what little credibility he had at that moment. Oh, but wait, didn't some Divine messenger write his speach for him? I recall that W. thinks he has divine guidance. Didn't the kings of France used to proclaim that? Look what happened to them.
I hope that a Commission is formed to investigate the entire Bush administration and they are put on trial and led away to a prison. As each day goes by, I come to the scary conclusion that people, no matter how well intentioned, have voted the devi himself into the oval office. From what I have read and heard, Bill Clinton was a shining example of goodness and honesty compared to the holier-than-thou Bush idiot.
Patch: bush was clearly elected, all mindless rhetoric to the side. Even kerry acknowledged this fact. by Herzog
Herzie, you know that I respect you. But wasn't Sadam Husein "elected?" Wasn't Manuel Noriega "elected?" Wasn't Pinochet "elected?" :)
Why does anyone bother arguing with Herzog? Dont you know he`s never wrong? He doesnt miss a joke. Nor does he have double standards, Neither does he twist the things said by others because he misses the point! He cerainly doesnt miss the irony that its ok for his country to have guns and missiles and yet not others! and hes right that democracy can be trusted not to drop nuclear weapons on innocent cities!
^ gosh what a horrible dream I was inside herzogs head! I feel unclean now! yuk!
Re herz': "And was it the neo-con politics of clinton that led to the largest terrorist attack on american soil in our history? Because you know the idea was concieved under his administration, in light of his foreign policy."
{blink} Does this have anything to do with the discussion at hand? Do you have such a knee-jerk partisanship that you believe anyone who hates Bush idolizes Clinton?
Here is a news flash: Clinton is not in office anymore. Stop tryingt o pas steh buck ... it is way past time that Bush and his cronies started accepting some responsibility for their actions.
There has been a long line of questionable American policy ... Nixon, Reagan, Clinton ... tell me ... how do you see this excusing George W Bush? Because I don't.
Re herz': "Not everyone with a gun is going to use it, does that mean we should hand them out to mentally unstable psycopaths who have stated their intent to use them?"
I agree ... the US should stop arming dictators around the world. Glad you agree.
As for nukes ... there is a big difference between "handing them out" and "preventing them from having them".
What good did nukes do us in Vietnam? In Iraq? None at all. Newsflash: It is doubtful any country will use them, aggressively. They keep them as a deterrent They know what would happen if they used them aggressively: The world would unite to thump them into the stone-age.
Re herz: Delivery systems.
{sigh} There is caution and then there is rank paranoia, herzog. Despite what you may believe, Iran is not going to be launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the US. Libya admitted the real reasons they stopped pursuing nukes (see last comment ... paraphrased).
The Right sees enemies everywhere ... and makes these visions into self-fulfilling prophecies.
Re herz': Who can be trusted.
If you want to set up the US as the arbitrator of who can and cannot have what arms, I think you will be in for a world of opposition ... especially in light of the incredibly flawed judgment shown these past four years.
We cannot proclaim ourselves World Police.
Re herz's: Bully statement.
If I paranoicly regard everyone around me as a potential bully ... and/or regard anyone who doesn't agree with me as an enemy to be taken down ... Yes ... that makes me the one with the problem and it makes me the bully.
The only ones with guns to anyones' heads is the US, herzog. In your fear that Iran may someday be a threat ... you become the threat.
Cath: what clinton has to do with this is as follows: you claim it is 'neo con foreign policy' that leads to a general dislike of the US around the world. And that this is what really causes us to be attacked by terrorists, this animosity. I pointed out the the largest attack in our history happened at a time when we were pretty much liked around the world, and we had a liberal foreign policy. Obviously your justification for attacks on the US was flawed.
'As for nukes ... there is a big difference between "handing them out" and "preventing them from having them".'
Fine, nitpicker. Let me rephrase: not everyone will use a gun, does that mean psycopaths who have stated they WILL use them should be allowed to *purchase* one without the government stepping in?
And if iran were to aquire nukes they wouldn't have to use them for them to be a threat. They simply have to invade one of their neighbors, like say a newly independent by still militarily weak iraq, then state clearly that if any american troops get involved one of our major cities goes up in smoke (or 2 or 3 or however many nukes they have), it's easy to smuggle them into a nation and almost impossible to detect them. Granted if they actually did that and made it clear where it came from iran would be destroyed, but what american president would send troops halfway around the world to fight a war for foreigners at that risk? None, they'd do exactly what saddam was trying to do by creating a nuclear arsenal: prevent western intervention in the middle east. Iran causes enough trouble now, what if they were left free from interference with half the worlds oil under their control?
And as for launching a preemptive strike at the US, probably not, but what about israel?
herz: Uh ... no it isn't. A good policy is not a guaranteed defense against attack; it means it is less likely.
And the worst, technically, happened on Bush's watch.
Pre-emptive strike: Doubtful ... because every country knows that there is a strong likelihood of becoming a pariah and having the entire rest of the world come down on you.
It is a paranoid fantasy of the Right, allowing them to pursue their fantasy of creating and winning arms races.
Cath: you claim that 'neo con foreign policies' make us more likely to be attacked, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this. Unless bin laden had the remarkable ability to see into the future and predicted 8 years ahead of time that bush would just barely win the closest presidential race in history and then implement his 'right wing' agenda, and so he sought to punish us proactively by planning and largely implementing the 9/11 attacks in advance, unless that is the case you really can't blame terrorism on george bush. Unless of course they terrorists sat down on november 2nd 2001 and said we need to get them for electing george bush, and managed to plan the whole thing in a remarkably short period of time.
And iran already is an international pariah, not that nuking israel would really get anyone but the US and israel pissed at them. Hell most of europe would probably come out in favor of giving the iranian general who launched the nukes a nobel peace prize, they love jewkillers. Look how they celebrated arafat. Besides which, the entire rest of the world wouldn't come down on them, it'd be up to the US and britain to do everything, as always. The entire rest of the world wouldn't even come down on hitler when he was doing his thing, many nations in europe and elsewhere remained neutral.
This notion that the international community will all of a sudden get up off their asses and do something isn't substantiated by facts. They did nothing on 911, they did nothing about iraq, they did nothing about the various genocides in africa, they did nothing about the invasion of afghanistan under the soviets, they've done nothing about iranian nukes, simply put they've done nothing of consequence. Why do you believe this will change?
Yes, when NeoCon policies piss off spo much of the rest of the world and we act liek arrogant, unilateralist imperialists ... I do think that increases the chance that people will want to do us a disservice, if the opportunity arises.
The idea that we can achieve "security" by trying to crush all opposition is nave, at best ... asinine, more likely.
iran is not Nazi Germany ... much as teh Right likes to tote out that image for every imagined foe they try to demonize.
Nukes are anathema. They change teh equation and raise teh stakes too far for countries to ignore. I am confident that this is a non-starter, despite the Right's paranoid misgivings.
The international community did nothing after 9/11?!?
herzog, perhaps Bush gets away with Orwellian contradictions and revisionist history, but I don't think you can.
The international community certainly did come together with the US after 9/11. Are you forgetting what a real coalition looks like?
I suggest that you have built up such a bias against the UN and international community that you are letting your prejudices take the place of what really happened.
'The international community certainly did come together with the US after 9/11. Are you forgetting what a real coalition looks like?'
And what did they do pray tell? I don't mean act together to send us some flowers and their condolences, I mean actually ACT. They allowed us to go into afghanistan and do all of the fighting, along with our afghani allies, then grudgingly sent a tiny number of troops after all the figthing was over to aid in the peacekeeping. Wow, I'm so . . . underwhelmed. Grab the average peacekeeper in afghanistan and odds are he's an american, all the counter terrorist activity and counter attacks are undertaken by american soldiers. Is this because america is the only nation in the world who can afford to send 10,000 troops to afghanistan? No, weak as they are I think europe could manage that much. Is it because we're the only nation who can support an army that far away? No, the europeans are far closer. Is it because we're the only nation who thought it'd be a good idea to invade, no even europe was able to agree on that point.
So why is it cath, if this massive anti-terrorist support sprung up following 911, that the world is not sending any significant number of troops to afghanistan?
And excluding their trivial support there, what else have they done to combat terrorism?
'I suggest that you have built up such a bias against the UN and international community that you are letting your prejudices take the place of what really happened.'
I've looked at it objectively. And for all the money and confidence we put into those two, they really haven't done anything to deserve it. Their successes include: irradicating smallpox, which could have been done without the UN, and korea, a half assed victory that only happened by a fluke, and in which american troops did all the heavy lifting. One significant and one minor victory, both of which would have happened without the UN, does not constitute a glowing resume to me.
Don't forget that the UN is criminally corrupt, will not accept an audit (there's a big giveaway Cathexis), was created by elite bankers and members of secret societies, and has proclaimed that it will only become a World Government if there is a global catastrophe (which is looking more and more likely).
People serously have to investigate the UN as well as the criminals in the US government. Neither one deserves our trust.
cretin: You make a good point about refusal to audit. Any group who refuses to audit invariably has something to hide (*cough*Diebold*cough*).
The coalition in iraq is tiny, as is the one in afghanistan. The rest of the world is unable or unwilling (or both) to aid the US in any military activety, no matter how necessary they deem it. For several generations the US has taken the burden of defending the western world, and as a result the western world (excluding the US and britain) is weak and sees no reason to change. The reason french troops aren't in afghanistan in overwhelming numbers is because they don't see the need to, they send a token force and expect the US to bear the brunt of it, as always. Even in korea, the one time the UN actually acted, the international forces were trivial in comparison to the US forces.
?
I am missing the point of the last statement.
You commented that the coalition in afghanistan is larger than the one in iraq, I clarified my point on the subject of coalitions.
Are you being diengenuous by trying to work the time angles?
The Coalition in Afghanistan was respectable. I have no idea what it is like now.
The "coalition" in Iraq was always one in name only.
|
