Sen. Tom Cotton: Military strikes on Iran would work

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: xuenchen

But Xuen, for the last 6 years we've heard nothing but, "If the government says so, then it's Gospel".

I wonder what has changed????

It's a corporate conspiracy for sure !!

a reply to: xuenchen

The reason why I bring this up is that for the past 6 years, we've had almost an adoration-complex with whatever came out of DC.

Morality, right, wrong, didn't matter. Because it came from a DC that people worshipped.

But now there appears to be a tidal change. It's not so much about what is being said, but who is saying it.

a reply to: xuenchen

The diplomatic efforts are failing for a reason.

Iran already rejected just about everything a few weeks ago.

Oh they did? It sounds as though a framework was agreed upon. Looks like progress is being made to me. Who said diplomatic efforts are failing? What sources are you going to for this? For me I'd like to give this deal a chance before I start jumping the gun.

Remember the Syrian "civil war" started right after Iran, Iraq, and Syria signed an agreement to build a natural gas pipeline from Iran to Syria, and extend to Europe.

Why is it that what's happening in Syra and the ME we must get involved in? Why should we risk more of our soldiers, get ourselves tied down in more wars and interventions around the world? Why must we get involved? How much more millions must we spend Xue? The Iraq war alone at one point was costing the country $200 million a DAY, lost 3000+ american lives, 100,000+ Iraqi lives. Look at the state Iraq is in today. Yet you don't want to go the diplomacy route. Do you think it's perfectly fine to continue on intervening in the middle east like this? How many more lives and money must we waste on interventionism? Wake up Xue.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: xuenchen

The reason why I bring this up is that for the past 6 years, we've had almost an adoration-complex with whatever came out of DC.

Morality, right, wrong, didn't matter. Because it came from a DC that people worshipped.

But now there appears to be a tidal change. It's not so much about what is being said, but who is saying it.

The failures in Washington are forcing a turnaround in campaign tactics for 2016.

Tom Cotton seems to be offering some controlled opposition plus a few tangents.

He was virtually unknown when he was in the House.

All of a sudden, he's a celebrity.

a reply to: xuenchen

Nothing is ever said in DC that doesn't have a multitude of levels and meanings.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The MSM has many people completely fooled.

It's hard to put all the BS together, but try skimming through these recent threads.

Pay attention to the content, not necessarily me.


SURPRISE: Iran Rejects Obama’s 10-Year Nuke Deal


Leaked Draft of Iran Nuke Deal


Iranian Defector: 'U.S. Negotiating Team Mainly There to Speak on Iran’s Behalf'


Why Is Obama's Fact Sheet Different From Iran's Fact Sheet?

It worked ok on Iraq and Syria's reactors. It is a giant fixed target afterall.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Multiple Air Strikes on Iran's " Alledged " Nuclear Underground Facilities with the U.S. Air Forces " MOP " Bunker Buster Bombs should do the Trick , that's if the " Spineless " Commander In Chief presently in Da White House Ever Grows a Pair.......... It''s pretty much a Forgone Conclusion that if Iran ever Developed a Nuclear Bomb and Launch Capability it would Consider using it for Foreign Relations Blackmail Against it's Neighbors in the Middle East .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Obviously you and afew others here support dragging us into another war in the ME. Who cares that wars like Iraq plunged us billions of dollars in debt with 1000's of lost american lives, and many more civilian lives, and for what? hmm? Iraq alone. It cost us $200 million a day. 3000+ lost american lives, 100,000+ Iraqi lives, for what? More debt? further instability in the ME? And some of you are angry that this president isn't dragging us into another war with Iran? A nation twice the size of Iraq?

I commend Obama for going the diplomatic route, I really do. It's unfortunate we have some who want to only beat the drum of war. Then they turn around and complaint about wasteful spending in government and abortion killing babies. But yes, let's make more war, spend more billions, and take more human lives. Hypocrites.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Did you support Obama when he wanted to go into Syria?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The neocons are just crying in their beer. A lost opportunity to extend the military-industrial complex, add trillions to the defense industries coffers, and complete the hegemony of the Plan for a New American Century, as well as appease their neocon allies in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

You fail to consider the possibility that this whole thing might be a conflict between corporations.

Russia/China (BRICS) vs Western.

I thought I'd address this as well,

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

that's if the " Spineless " Commander In Chief presently in Da White House Ever Grows a Pair

The only spineless people here are the chickenhawk politicians and the keyboard warriors sitting safe and comfortably while beating the drums of war, yet you'd never find them in a warzone in Iran.

a reply to: beezzer

Nope, I don't support any involvement in Syria, opposed intervention in Libya as well. I'm opposed to interventionism. I support a strong defense. I did support operations in Afghanistan but there's no point in continuing this.

While I'm not happy this administration has largely continued the military involvement in the ME we've seen for the last few decades, I'll give credit to the efforts in this admin in trying on Iran. I don't see the GOP having any viable alternatives other than more war.

Where do you stand Beezzer?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

To be honest? I don't trust the Iranian government nor do I trust the American government.

I don't feel that the US government has our best interests at heart.

Do I think that Iran is developing nuclear weapons? Yes. Hence the sanctions since 2003.

Do I think the negotiations will work? No. But that's because I have no faith in either government.

You wanted my honest opinion?

I just gave it.

a reply to: beezzer

I appreciate your honest opinion Beezzer. If you don't trust the government and these negotiations, fine. To me I'd like to give diplomacy a chance. As for sanctions, while we've imposed sanctions on Iran for their nuclear enrichment since 2003, America has imposed sanctions on Iran in general since 1979. Clearly these sanctions haven't done anything to curb Irans goals for nuclear enrichment. That leaves us with war with Iran as the other option and frankly I don't see enough reason and justification to start a war with Iran, another war in the ME.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

How long to you want to see diplomacy?

What is your rubicon?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

" I commend Obama for going the diplomatic route, I really do. It's unfortunate we have some who want to only beat the drum of war. Then they turn around and complaint about wasteful spending in government and abortion killing babies. But yes, let's make more war, spend more billions, and take more human lives. Hypocrites. "


You obviously know Nothing about Problem Solving in the World of Geopolitics . A Nuclear Iran would have Many Serious Repercussions for Years to come considering their Radical Religious And Political Beliefs . A Military Confrontation is Inevitable between them , Israel , and Western Nations if this Issue of their desire to Enrich Plutonium for Weapons Grade Nukes is Not Addressed and Stopped ASAP by the United States and it's Allies .


Now go Read a Book or Something you Misguided Fool.........

a reply to: beezzer

Well this is the first time there has ever been any proper diplomacy made with Iran, atleast to this level in my memory, so I'd like to give it some time. If there is no agreement or if an agreement falls apart with Iran, then I would not mind seeing sanctions continue as they are. I do however question the effectiveness of sanctions given how long we've imposed em' on Iran and the fact we're back to square one. I don't see any solid evidence that Iran intends to build a nuclear weapon. Even if this is the case, they're still far from enough enrichment to develop said weapon. I don't see enough reason to start a war with them.

I also believe, if we're going to be so concerned with nations holding nuclear weapons outside of the NPT agreement we outta be consistent. Israel needs to start opening up about her possession of nuclear weapons.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Under what circumstances then would you ever envision attacking Iran militarily?

Ever?

Never?

Because there comes a time when attacking them would be a bad thing, especially if they had developed a nuclear weapon.