It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
By the way, I was talking to a friend of mine today (retired Naval officer, flew for NATO for years); I asked him his position on this Iran thing. Unequivocally, he said "diplomacy must work!"
The man knows what he's talking about.
The question is, are the NeoCons so blinde and ignorant as to fall into the same trap twice?
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Attacking them would probably change the people's views a bit, and we can't have that!
The question is, are the NeoCons so blinde and ignorant as to fall into the same trap twice?
Why do you keep saying that?
You have been shown article after article how this is not a "NeoCon" thing yet you continue to ignore that fact. Why?
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Who exactly do you think is in charge?
Originally posted by 27jd
If that's the case, I would be very interested to know how they were able to get France and Germany on board this time, and Russia to pretty much wash it's hands of Iran. That's a pretty tall feat for the neocons in a time when they are struggling so much here at home, something they were unable to do with Iraq after 9/11 when they were going strong. I know you've stated that you don't believe France and Germany are "on board", but at this point I do, and I don't think Chirac would have aimed those nuclear retaliation comments so blatantly at Iran if it didn't plan to go the distance....
Like I've stated before, to me the U.S. almost seems to be on the sidelines, thus far anyway.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
:shk: Right. The best thing to do is to take that hope (for friendship w/the west and progress) and turn them against us for all time.
I take it you didn't even read the analysis from LewRockwell (NOT liberal).
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
(this article here does a pretty good job trying to explain why that is)
Attacking them would probably change the people's views a bit, and we can't have that!
Originally posted by 27jd
Like I've stated before, to me the U.S. almost seems to be on the sidelines, thus far anyway.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You have European countries and even some democrats taking a harder stance on Iran than the Neo Cons, yet ECK still refuses to either see or address that and continues to put this in the hands of the Neo Cons without any real explanation why.
[
I take it you didn't read my post....
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
What European countries? Isreal? That's in the mideast.
Do you even understand that NeoCons are both Democrat and Republican? It doesn't really sound like it.
Trust me, buddy, the this has NeoCon all over it.
Why don't you tell us why you're foaming at the mouth defending them? Are you a NeoCon? If so, go take a bath.
I absolutely read your post.
Right. The best thing to do is to take that hope (for friendship w/the west and progress) and turn them against us for all time.
But you should really admit, you didn't bother to read the article I provided. You absolutely don't understand who wrote it. If you did, that would make a big difference in your thinking.
Good luck with that....btw..
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You have yet to show me how this is just a NeoCon thing.
Why don't you tell us why you're foaming at the mouth defending them? Are you a NeoCon? If so, go take a bath.
wtf?
Defending them?
How? By saying it's more than a NeoCon thing?
Right. The best thing to do is to take that hope (for friendship w/the west and progress) and turn them against us for all time.
I have read the article.
What about it?
That's his opinion of what's going to happen. I don't know why he completely ignores the UN and EU (and even Isreal), and he doesn't really present any facts to back up his statements...but that's his opinion and he's entitled to it.
Why do you want me to take just one man's opinion as gospel so bad? Just because you agree with him?
lol
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Tad bit sensitive are we?
If the shoe fits..
Attacking Iran would only send those freedom loving young Iranians right back into the Islamists hands. Do you really think that would be a wise course fo action? Can you not see the larger picture?
I don't think you did read that article. You havn't shown an ounce of understanding of it, or even commented on it. Why would I think you read it, much less given his position a fair shake, or an ounce of debate? You simply reacted like a teenager would. spit spit spit..
Why don't you talk to me about what the article said? Maybe its a bit beyond your comprehension? I mean, what else am I to think? You havn't offered anything remotely equal to his argument.
In contrast to its official concern over Iran's nuclear developments, the Bush Administration says not a word publicly about the first development, strictly peaceful, which would create new international demand for euros in place of dollars. This could break apart the lock-step decision of OPEC governments to accept payment only in dollars, a possibility welcomed by the Islamic press.
An unprovoked American attack on Iran will instantly and permanently de-legitimize every American client state in the Middle East. If the United States bombs Iran, the Bush Administration might as well send that "Mission Accomplished" banner to Al Qaeda headquarters.
The day the bombs begin to fall, the mullahs will join ranks with teenagers in the streets of Tehran. Dr. Ahmadinejad will become as politically immune from public criticism as Mr. Bush was on September 12, 2001.
The day after the bombs begin to fall on Iran, clandestine weapons will begin to flow westward across the Iran-Iraq border. The Shi'ites in Iraq will instantly become the long-lost cousins of the Sunni resistance movement. There is an old Muslim saying,
"My brother and I against our cousin. We and our cousin against the world."
The United States' troops on the ground will discover the deadly power of that alliance. All co-operation from the Shi'ites will cease. There will be a unified anti-American front south of the Kurdish region.
President Bush can issue warnings. The Administration can talk tough. But what is the point?
If it is not a bluff, and the bombs fall, the United States' client regimes in the Middle East are as good as gone.
We will then be driven out of Iraq. This message will be fully understood by every Muslim in the street. The Great Satan can be whipped. No better reason exists to start looking for a local client to whip.
Iran cannot be occupied by U.S. troops.
So, the enforcement of any anti-nuclear technology development program is a bluff.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
it would be interesting to know what european nations are fully ready to actually bomb or send it troops