From Iraq to Iran

itsbob

I bowl overhand
harleygirl said:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Undaunted by the difficult war in Iraq, President George W. Bush reaffirmed his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations on Thursday and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/16/bush.security.ap/index.html
Hopefully Iraq will be known in the future as the Jump Off Point for our securing of the midlle East, and the destruction of all those that want to do harm to us.
 

Nupe2

Well-Known Member
itsbob said:
Hopefully Iraq will be known in the future as the Jump Off Point for our securing of the midlle East, and the destruction of all those that want to do harm to us.

Gonna have to disagree with you on that one Bob. It is next to impossible to kill an idea. You'd pretty much have to kill everyone with that idea and hope that no others join in the beliefs expressed within that "idea." I doubt Bush or any other President would be able to accomplish this without the spectre of mutual destruction at some point down the line. I wish I knew how to bring about peace but I really can't get behind the idea that war is the answer.
 

Hessian

Well-Known Member
Interesting...

I wish I knew if this was just chatter or is it serious but Iran has a sizable minority NOT happy with their president or his 13th century mindset.
There were fires in the past week and several police cars went up.
Others in the government have been afraid of speaking up in resistance
AND---
Some economists project an economic collapse within a year partly due to isolationist treatment.

So--the only thing that stirs patriotism behind this idiot is his passion against the West...and the counter threats.

Were we to lay low, get intel, find supporters...we may be able to watch Iran topple without US troops or missles. (I am hoping this would be the best route) We could equally hope for yet another earthquake that would break their regime.

However...if their leaders feel they are losing control,...they may launch a war to distract the people (Machiavelli in action).
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Hessian said:
I wish I knew if this was just chatter or is it serious but Iran has a sizable minority NOT happy with their president or his 13th century mindset.
There were fires in the past week and several police cars went up.
Others in the government have been afraid of speaking up in resistance
AND---
Some economists project an economic collapse within a year partly due to isolationist treatment.

So--the only thing that stirs patriotism behind this idiot is his passion against the West...and the counter threats.

Were we to lay low, get intel, find supporters...we may be able to watch Iran topple without US troops or missles. (I am hoping this would be the best route) We could equally hope for yet another earthquake that would break their regime.

However...if their leaders feel they are losing control,...they may launch a war to distract the people (Machiavelli in action).

In their country you can't be "Known" to disagree with the gov't, or your life expectancy drops considerably..

and as far as not being aboe to defeat an idea.. well, lets just say, I'd rather have the deaths, the damage, and the wars happening there then here. Bush is right in the fact that we HAVE to bring the fight to them, because if we don't, they will bring death and destruction here.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Hessian said:
I wish I knew if this was just chatter or is it serious but Iran has a sizable minority NOT happy with their president or his 13th century mindset.
There were fires in the past week and several police cars went up.
Others in the government have been afraid of speaking up in resistance
AND---
Some economists project an economic collapse within a year partly due to isolationist treatment.

So--the only thing that stirs patriotism behind this idiot is his passion against the West...and the counter threats.

Were we to lay low, get intel, find supporters...we may be able to watch Iran topple without US troops or missles. (I am hoping this would be the best route) We could equally hope for yet another earthquake that would break their regime.

However...if their leaders feel they are losing control,...they may launch a war to distract the people (Machiavelli in action).
Isn't that what caused the last war between Iran and Iraq?
 

bigluke

New Member
It would at least be nice to know we were attacking a place that actually had some type of weapons that were a threat to us.
 

Nickel

curiouser and curiouser
bigluke said:
It would at least be nice to know we were attacking a place that actually had some type of weapons that were a threat to us.
I too feel comforted by the fact that we are thisclose to fatally ticking off a country that is prepared to use nuclear defense against us. Makes me sleep better at night.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
bigluke said:
It would at least be nice to know we were attacking a place that actually had some type of weapons that were a threat to us.
It's actually better to attack them BEFORE they have those kinds of weapons..
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
bigluke said:
It would at least be nice to know we were attacking a place that actually had some type of weapons that were a threat to us.

I believe the whole point of a pre-emptive strike is to stop a country from getting weapons that are a threat to us. Once they've got them all we can do is duck & cover and hope they don't use them. That was a pretty good idea with realists like the Soviets, but when dealing with suicidal religious zealots who think God wants them to kill us... that's a bad policy.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Nupe2 said:
Gonna have to disagree with you on that one Bob. It is next to impossible to kill an idea. You'd pretty much have to kill everyone with that idea and hope that no others join in the beliefs expressed within that "idea." I doubt Bush or any other President would be able to accomplish this without the spectre of mutual destruction at some point down the line. I wish I knew how to bring about peace but I really can't get behind the idea that war is the answer.

That's not entirely true. What about Nazism? How many Kamikazee pilots are still in the JSDF? You can kill and idea, but you need massive amounts of effort to do it, and the US seems to be split between who wants to help the President, and those who want to hurt the President, and the issue of Islamic terrorism falls through a crack between the two. And we can't turn to our allies because many of them are suffering through depression and the bad actors out there are smart enough to make our allies financially dependent on trade with them so there's no way they're going to side with us.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Nupe...

Nupe2 said:
Gonna have to disagree with you on that one Bob. It is next to impossible to kill an idea. You'd pretty much have to kill everyone with that idea and hope that no others join in the beliefs expressed within that "idea." I doubt Bush or any other President would be able to accomplish this without the spectre of mutual destruction at some point down the line. I wish I knew how to bring about peace but I really can't get behind the idea that war is the answer.

Not trying to pick on you but, the idea is EXACTLY what needs killing. It ALWAYS is.

In our civil war the idea of white supremacy died when enough of those who said they would rather die than see blacks free either died or changed their mind. There will always be bigotry in the world but, with blacks successful at all levels of society throughout our nation, and especially the South, the idea is dead.

In WWII with Germany enough people who sought Aryan supremacy died or changed their mind for that idea to die.

Imperial Japan suffered the same reality; die or change you ways. That idea died.

We used capitalism to fell the Soviet Union.

In Korea, we left the job undone and the problem exists today. Vietnam is the same. In both cases, the only time we got anywhere in the direction of winning was when we laid the violence on thick.

We did not finish the job in Iraq in 1991. And?

Radical Islam is no different that the ideas of white or Aryan or Imperial or Communist supremacy. Kill enough of it and the idea dies. There is ZERO threat of Nazi-ism today nor rebirth of a Japanese Empire or the rebirth of slavery.

Communism and Islamofacism are a different story. It has to be understood and accepted that when something sees you as the enemy and sees it as a life or death contest, they ARE going to see it to the end. We can simply wait until they make us take them seriously or we can get on with the violence.

We are the good guys. We are the world. We are black and white and yellow and brown and Christian and Jew and Muslim and atheist and agnostic and however many more identities and backgrounds. That's why so many do not like us. For all our stuggles, all the rest of the world sees us and realizes how much they suck. Makes 'em grumpy.

That's why so many of our own struggle with our supremacy; they are not comfortable with that kind of freedom and that kind of responsibility. Americanism is the blood enemy, because of our very diversity, of the other 'isms' and their exclusivity. Tough to face when all you ever focus on is our own problems.

This is war between our ideas, one of freedom and justice for all, and their ideas which are the antithesis. With the ever increasing power to do harm, the sooner this battle is won the better.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
It amazes me...

bigluke said:
It would at least be nice to know we were attacking a place that actually had some type of weapons that were a threat to us.


...how people live with that mindset.

You ever go to the doctor if you suspect something is wrong and it never seems to get better? You walk out with a clean bill of health thinking it was a waste of time? You ever go to the mechanic if the little yellow lights on the dash keep going off? You get upset if the mechanic says "Good thing you brought it in when you did." ???

Go back to pre March 2003. Saddam and Iraq were nothing but suspect. Had we not invaded, what do you suppose Saddam would be doing today, especially if sanctions were lifted and all inspections ended?

When you see smoke and kick in the door, it is supposed to proved relief if there isn't much of a fire, not an attitude of 'why did we waste time making sure?"

Certainly, it would have just gone away had we ignored it, yes?
 

Nupe2

Well-Known Member
Bruzilla said:
That's not entirely true. What about Nazism? How many Kamikazee pilots are still in the JSDF? You can kill and idea, but you need massive amounts of effort to do it, and the US seems to be split between who wants to help the President, and those who want to hurt the President, and the issue of Islamic terrorism falls through a crack between the two. And we can't turn to our allies because many of them are suffering through depression and the bad actors out there are smart enough to make our allies financially dependent on trade with them so there's no way they're going to side with us.

"next to impossible" However, I understand your position and I think we agree.

The decision to go to war with Japan was a no-brainer after Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on the U.S. in accordance with an agreement they signed with Japan. It is an entirely different concept to attack a nation's military and supporting infrastructure than it is to attack "Islamic terrorists." Who are they, where are they?

I think any mistrust of the President lies at the feet of the President and his Senior advisors. The U.S. has attacked Iraq to either find "Weapons of Mass Destruction," "free the Iraqi people," "bring democracy to the middle east," (that one is eerily familiar to the line in Full Metal Jacket - "Inside every gook, there's an American trying to get out") or, to rid the region of terrorists. This administration can't seem to make up it's mind why the Iraq war has been fought. Which reason am I to believe? Indeed, I remember a statement that the mission was accomplished! Which mission? If it was accomplished why are our sons and daughters still dying?

My concern is that we are being led down a path that will find us fighting two wars almost entirely alone and with no clear goal other than whatever is the slogan or rationale of the month. Again, I am not a politician but the beauty of this country is that we can engage in this dialogue. I wish some of our politicians would stop the bi-partisan bickering long enough to engage in meaningful dialogue, make reasoned decisions, and clearly state those decisions and the rationale behind them (to the extent possible) to the American people. We deserve at least that.
 
Last edited:

Nupe2

Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
Not trying to pick on you but, the idea is EXACTLY what needs killing. It ALWAYS is.

In our civil war the idea of white supremacy died when enough of those who said they would rather die than see blacks free either died or changed their mind. There will always be bigotry in the world but, with blacks successful at all levels of society throughout our nation, and especially the South, the idea is dead.

In WWII with Germany enough people who sought Aryan supremacy died or changed their mind for that idea to die.

Imperial Japan suffered the same reality; die or change you ways. That idea died.

We used capitalism to fell the Soviet Union.

In Korea, we left the job undone and the problem exists today. Vietnam is the same. In both cases, the only time we got anywhere in the direction of winning was when we laid the violence on thick.

We did not finish the job in Iraq in 1991. And?

Radical Islam is no different that the ideas of white or Aryan or Imperial or Communist supremacy. Kill enough of it and the idea dies. There is ZERO threat of Nazi-ism today nor rebirth of a Japanese Empire or the rebirth of slavery.

Communism and Islamofacism are a different story. It has to be understood and accepted that when something sees you as the enemy and sees it as a life or death contest, they ARE going to see it to the end. We can simply wait until they make us take them seriously or we can get on with the violence.

We are the good guys. We are the world. We are black and white and yellow and brown and Christian and Jew and Muslim and atheist and agnostic and however many more identities and backgrounds. That's why so many do not like us. For all our stuggles, all the rest of the world sees us and realizes how much they suck. Makes 'em grumpy.

That's why so many of our own struggle with our supremacy; they are not comfortable with that kind of freedom and that kind of responsibility. Americanism is the blood enemy, because of our very diversity, of the other 'isms' and their exclusivity. Tough to face when all you ever focus on is our own problems.

This is war between our ideas, one of freedom and justice for all, and their ideas which are the antithesis. With the ever increasing power to do harm, the sooner this battle is won the better.

Larry: No problem. I love this stuff! I gotta get back to work but I think your last statement is one that we need to consider. I don't think this is a battle that will be won soon. I think we are really fighting a second Crusade. Do you think this country is up to the task? I always thought the only way to win in Vietnam was to kill every Vietnamese (you VC?). I think the only way we win against "Islamic Terrorists" would be to.... I don't think any of us can do that math. As I said before, I don't know what the answer is. I don't think any of us know the whole story or ever will. I do know that we have got to figure out an effective strategy that will not lead us down the path of Mutually Assured Destruction.
 
Last edited:

Nupe2

Well-Known Member
I could be wrong:

From the AP:

"A top Iranian official said Thursday that his country was ready to open direct talks with the United States over Iraq, marking a major shift in Tehran's foreign policy a day after an Iraqi leader called for such talks. Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator and secretary of the country's Supreme National Security Council, told reporters that any talks between the United States and Iran would deal only with Iraqi issues."

I am shocked and awed by this! :lmao:
 

ylexot

Super Genius
Nupe2 said:
The U.S. has attacked Iraq to either find "Weapons of Mass Destruction," "free the Iraqi people," "bring democracy to the middle east," (that one is eerily familiar to the line in Full Metal Jacket - "Inside every gook, there's an American trying to get out") or, to rid the region of terrorists. This administration can't seem to make up it's mind why the Iraq war has been fought. Which reason am I to believe?
All of the above. Always has been. Just because some people can't walk and chew gum at the same time, doesn't mean all of us are that simple-minded.
Nupe2 said:
Indeed, I remember a statement that the mission was accomplished! Which mission? If it was accomplished why are our sons and daughters still dying?
OY VEY!
"Mission Accomplished" was never said. Here's what he said on the aircraft carrier:
Bush makes historic speech aboard warship
Of special note:
The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
 

Nupe2

Well-Known Member
ylexot said:
All of the above. Always has been. Just because some people can't walk and chew gum at the same time, doesn't mean all of us are that simple-minded.
OY VEY!
"Mission Accomplished" was never said. Here's what he said on the aircraft carrier:
Bush makes historic speech aboard warship
Of special note:

The White House said on October 29, 2003 that it had helped with the production of a 'Mission Accomplished' banner as a backdrop for President George W. Bush's speech onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln to declare combat operations over in Iraq. This file photo shows Bush delivering a speech to crew aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as the carrier steamed toward San Diego, California on May 1, 2003. (Larry Downing/Reuters)
 

Attachments

  • Mission Accomplished.jpg
    Mission Accomplished.jpg
    15.2 KB · Views: 65
Top