Joe Says: We Must Prepare for Possible Strike on Iran!

Originally posted by neformore
Hal - why is a nuclear armed Israel acceptable, but not a nuclear armed Iran?

Iran would not be stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon against the US or Israel directly because they would see an immediate nuclear retaliation that would turn the whole country into a cinder. That is called deterrence and is not the problem here.

The problem is that Iran sponsors all kinds of terrorist groups and has the ability to sponsor a nuclear terror attack anywhere in the world (the reasons Iran sponsors terrorist groups is another discussion.) How would the US or Israel respond to a nuclear terror attack? Could we justify vaporizing a thousands or millions of people based on CIA intelligence or what ANY US President said?? If we could not – what would we do?? That is the real danger – we can’t allow any country that sponsors terror groups to have access to this kind of weaponry. Terrorist tactics can nullify the effectiveness of deterrence. It’s not a matter of fairness, human rights or national sovereignty – it’s a matter of survival. Sometimes the choices are reduced to “us” or “them”. I choose “us.”

Originally posted by dgtempe

Just spreading fear to the Americans and to the world.

Hey DG
Not to mention possibly inciting some kind of attack on us with his open threats.




[edit on 11-6-2007 by ThePieMaN]

Lieberman's not making the decisions, that other war monger is, for now.
Iran's a growing problem that may have wmd substance by the time Mr Bush is finished his endearment to world peace should nothing be done to delay Iran's efforts.

We, the free world as it was known, are in a hell of a mess and with Russia and China adding real pressure to the Bush bubble something's going to burst soon.
I feel sorry for the next US President whomever she/he is and from whatever party. Will the mess left behind be to big and too far gone to clean up through diplomacy?

Dallas

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

Originally posted by dgtempe

Just spreading fear to the Americans and to the world.

Hey DG
Not to mention possibly inciting some kind of attack on us with his open threats.




[edit on 11-6-2007 by ThePieMaN]

Well, yes. Instigating either us to attack or instigating "them" to take action against us. What's a few more thousand dead?????

Originally posted by Dallas
We, the free world as it was known, are in a hell of a mess and with Russia and China adding real pressure to the Bush bubble something's going to burst soon.
I feel sorry for the next US President whomever she/he is and from whatever party. Will the mess left behind be to big and too far gone to clean up through diplomacy?

Dallas

Dallas not for nothing but the best thing we can do to prove to the world that we aren't the way we appear to be..is to impeach the whole crew of them..oust them all and let them pay for the crimes they've committed not only against the people of the United States but citizens of the world all over.

Originally posted by dgtempe

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

Originally posted by dgtempe

Just spreading fear to the Americans and to the world.

Hey DG
Not to mention possibly inciting some kind of attack on us with his open threats.




[edit on 11-6-2007 by ThePieMaN]

Well, yes. Instigating either us to attack or instigating "them" to take action against us. What's a few more thousand dead?????

Then how, oh denizen of the righteous and just, do you propose to end this conflict which will rage on ad infinitum should we all do nothing?

We are currently in default political mode right now as far as I'm concerned and it smells worse than that fish in Denmark the Stooges always talked about. There is no accident that we are in a longer than usual election cycle/period right now. The longer each party can put its beliefs under the umbrella of "campaign promises" or "candidate said it, not the party", the longer those political parties (yes, Dems and Repubs) have to actually cement their stand on the war, on healthcare, etc. It's a nasty, country-killing game of chicken that we are being treated to. And I mean the United States as the one they are killing.

So, is instigating "them" to take action the right thing? No. A few thousand more dead would be horrific, but the choice of the next president might mean a lot more thousand or million dead if we all choose wrong.

Would you really want Mike Gravel or Tommy Thompson running this place so we could just "get on" with fixing this war thingy?

That's one to grow on....

[edit on 11-6-2007 by newtron25]

Originally posted by newtron25

Then how, oh denizen of the righteous and just, do you propose to end this conflict which will rage on ad infinitum should we all do nothing?

When I meant incitement I meant inciting terrorists to hit us here. I think it adds fuel to the fire if they hear that we should attack. Especially since they are well aware that we'd be attacking for Israel and not that Iran is a threat to us since they have no capability to strike at us as of yet.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
When I meant incitement I meant inciting terrorists to hit us here. I think it adds fuel to the fire if they hear that we should attack. Especially since they are well aware that we'd be attacking for Israel and not that Iran is a threat to us since they have no capability to strike at us as of yet.

Since when do terrorist need incitement to make terrorist attacks?...

Perhaps you should be doing a google search with "terrorist attack in France" or you can change the country for any other European country and see what happens....

Even after France and some others were talking against the war in Iraq, Muslim terrorists/extremists were continuing their attempts at terrorist attacks in France, Spain, Germany, and some other European countries...

Originally posted by ThePieMaN


When I meant incitement I meant inciting terrorists to hit us here. I think it adds fuel to the fire if they hear that we should attack. Especially since they are well aware that we'd be attacking for Israel and not that Iran is a threat to us since they have no capability to strike at us as of yet.

So with that logic, what may I ask incited 9/11?? What did we do miss a royalty payment the saudi government?? what??

Iraq was the worst foreign policy mistake this Nation has commited in the last 100 years....its has opened pandora's box in the ME, with China and Russia stepping in with well thought out investments and policies. Russia is the major direct Cash benificiary, China is the major trade benificiary.

"Staying the Course"....what exactly does that mean...what Course is it we are supposed to stay on...what is the destination..? how do we know when we have achieved our goal...? It cannot be defined by the people that made these tragic decisions, so what is the objective and how do when its reached..?

Americans allowed themselves to be terrorized into submission, this nation has become weak, ineffective and is flailing about in world politics trying to desperately salvage the situation.

The US Dollar is on verge of a unstoppable downward spiral, when that tipping point comes world war is unavoidable.

People will read about these decisions and individuals that made them, and wonder how Citizens of USA could simply watch and not hold their leaders accountable.


[edit on 11-6-2007 by Hallberg Rassy]

Originally posted by neformore
Well yes, you bought the war - but you didn't answer my question about why you were there in the first place

I’ll try to answer your question even though you won’t like the answer and won’t believe me. The short answer is: President Bush, like all US Presidents, tried to change the world for the better.

Every President tries to do something to make the world a better place so he can have a good legacy. Clinton tried to make a difference in the Balkans and put a great effort into trying to work out a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. He wanted peace in the ME to be his legacy but unfortunately it did not happen. The world would have been much better off if he had succeeded.

The great issue of the day for President Bush has been responding to 9/11 and terrorism. He sent the military to Afghanistan to attack the Taliban and proposed new legislation to protect America and her citizens. As with all such actions, some results have been good and some have been disasters. Americans largely supported the President’s actions (at least initially) because we, generally, want the world to be a better place and are inclined to take action to make such progress happen. The idea behind going into Iraq was that the “oppressed” people of the ME want a better life and would embrace democracy and self-determination if they had the chance. If we could break loose the hold of tyrants such as Saddam Hussein and free the “good” people of the ME they would take the opportunity to better their own lives, stamp out terrorism and make the world a better place. A free Iraq would be the catalyst for great changes in the ME just as Poland was a catalyst for changes in Eastern Europe.

It was a simple idea based on a purely American point of view that turned out to be wrong. You can berate President Bush and America for a thousand years over the mistakes we have made and it won’t change what has happened. The fact that President Bush and many Americans (like me) believed this idea and have been proven wrong is not the really big issue here. The real problem now is that the vision of a progressive, democratic ME is not going to happen. At best, we will be dealing with tyrants, terrorists and dictatorships for a long time to come. The more likely scenario is a really nasty regional war in the next 1 to 3 years. A US pullout from Iraq and a different President in 2009 won’t make any difference. Sorry.

Originally posted by Hallberg Rassy



People will read about these decisions and individuals that made them, and wonder how Citizens of USA could simply watch and not hold their leaders accountable.


[edit on 11-6-2007 by Hallberg Rassy]

Am I Bush's keeper??? In the wake of 9/11 we saw the actions of Bush as nessesary to prevent another future attack.

The President's approval rating was very high and in the aftermath of the twin towers collaps, very few people at the time saw any reason not to go into Iraq , other than myself for biblical reasons, but I think most people understood at the time.

Flash Forward, to present day and after all of the brow beating from the media over no WMD's found and the lack of testicular fortitude by the present administration to do the job right in Iraq, we should have hit Iran at the same time!! instead we have now given them years to prepare for an attack, arm themselves to the teeth with russian and Chinese weapons.

We now have the rest of the world starting to question whether we as citizens should hold our president accountable for the things he's done.


All the crap certainly does roll down hill huh.


lets not forget that day too easily now, I know that I wont forget seeing those innocent people jumping from the twin towers, some struggling to hang on, the horrific scene of an airliner disintigrating into the sides of that building, the look of bewilerment on people's faces that day. Journalist's were struggling to find the words to even report what was happening that day.


So when people in another country might ask how Citizens of the USA could simply watch and not hold their leaders accountable??


I would tell them that we were all victim's that day, not just those who died in the towers but the rest of the world too. for those who were killed in airstrikes from the US in retaliation for the towars. for those who were lead by individuals who conspired to cause a country to fall. for those who felt that backing up our president in the "war on terror" was the least they could do since their best friends daughter died in the towers.


And for those who think that this is an Illuminati plot to bring about the one world government even those who secretly plot and conspire with one another to advance this agenda, you will have to answer for your actions one day also, we all get whats coming to us in the end.

Originally posted by the_sentinal

So with that logic, what may I ask incited 9/11?? What did we do miss a royalty payment the saudi government?? what??

They hit us because they hate our freedom, they hate our coca-cola and they want to make us all dhimmis and to bring about the caliphate?

Nothing to do with Israel/Palestine situation at all. Nothing to do with our constant vetoing of any measures aimed at Israel, and nothing to do with funding and arming Israel to continue the occupation. Its all just a dream.
Nothing to do with our actions or inactions in the ME either

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

They hit us because they hate our freedom, they hate our coca-cola and they want to make us all dhimmis and to bring about the caliphate?

Nothing to do with Israel/Palestine situation at all. Nothing to do with our constant vetoing of any measures aimed at Israel, and nothing to do with funding and arming Israel to continue the occupation. Its all just a dream.
Nothing to do with our actions or inactions in the ME either

First of all, bending your use of the word "dhimmi" from the Wikipedia was less than convincing, allow me to offer the full definition for the rest of the readers of this thread:

From Wikipedia

A dhimmi (Arabic: ذمي, collectively: أهل الذمة, ahl al-dhimma, the people of the dhimma or pact of protection, Ottoman Turkish zimmi) was a free, non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia — Islamic law. A dhimmi is a person of the dhimma, a term which refers in Islamic law to a pact contracted between non-Muslims and authorities from their Muslim government. This status was originally only made available to non-Muslims who were People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians), but was later extended to include Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Mandeans, and, in some areas, Hindus[1] and Buddhists.[2][3] Dhimmi had more rights than other non-Muslim religious subjects, but fewer legal and social rights than Muslim persons.[4] This status applied to millions of people living from the Atlantic Ocean to India from the 7th century until modern times.[5] Over time, many dhimmis converted to Islam. Most conversions were voluntary and happened for a number of different reasons but forced conversion played a role in some later periods of Islamic history, mostly in the 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus as well as in Persia where Shi'a Islam is dominant.[6]

Also from Wiki....

A caliphate (from the Arabic خلافة or khilāfah), is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world.

~~~~

Are you trying to drum up support for your form of rabies by invoking these words? Or are you intending to offer a salient thought somewhere along the line?

We already know that extremists are responsible for all of the nastiest of the attacks on us. Although the Muslim world, whatever that constitutes may or may not be accepting of this behavior, actively providing their support is a different proposition all together.

Did it ever occur to anyone that the people who are attacking us are in fact using the mysterious and alien nature of this religion to shroud their intent? After all, if you start with a religious group that is already unhappy with the west, maybe not to the point of wanting to actually blow us all to smithereens, then you decide to light the match with the distances between the two cultures...then you have yourself instant disguise.

Add the possibility that other people may have wanted at the United States and could be using the hostilities that exist amongst the extremists in the greatest concentration and amid the general Muslim population at a very low level of dislike...and viola you have yourself a petri dish for terror.

But please don't go throwing around words like "dhimmi" or "caliphate" unless you have the time to post your thoughts on how those ideologies may or may fit into the picture. I think it only adds lighter fluid to the already hot-enough coals we have going here.

Thanks newtron25, I had no idea what those terms really meant untill now, but sadly it doesn't change my opinion of the post or the poster in this situation, thanks just the same though.

Originally posted by newtron25
Are you trying to drum up support for your form of rabies by invoking these words? Or are you intending to offer a salient thought somewhere along the line?

All that coming from someone who feels our support for Israel is helping the Middle East and oil prices LOL and I have rabies?

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

Originally posted by newtron25
Are you trying to drum up support for your form of rabies by invoking these words? Or are you intending to offer a salient thought somewhere along the line?

All that coming from someone who feels our support for Israel is helping the Middle East and oil prices LOL and I have rabies?

Hey, I never said that I DIDN'T have rabies! I was just saying that I would never dream of having your kind of rabies...ewww!

I'm pretty particular.

PieMan

When I meant incitement I meant inciting terrorists to hit us here. I think it adds fuel to the fire if they hear that we should attack. Especially since they are well aware that we'd be attacking for Israel and not that Iran is a threat to us since they have no capability to strike at us as of yet.

Much of the world hated USA before 9/11 and before the invasion of Iraq just because it represented different values and Mammon to them. Doing nothing will not make the threat go away. USA would be a target whichever course it takes now.

The choice now is, will USA wait for it's enemies to grow stronger and more powerful, or destroy that ability now whilst still in it's infancy ?

I agree that Bush & co lied to get USA into Iraq. I am not a republican, nor a supporter of Bush.

That does not mean the justifications about Iran are false just because they were about Iraq.

Originally posted by itguysrule

I’ll try to answer your question even though you won’t like the answer and won’t believe me. The short answer is: President Bush, like all US Presidents, tried to change the world for the better.

Thanks for answering

I'm not going to argue with anything that you've written.

I will answer this point with a question however - did he ask the world first?

After all, he ignored the UN. He ignored alot of advice from the USA's closest allies as well.

What gave him the right to inflict his belief on the world? 92% of the "COW" forces in Iraq are American.

Have a look at this. These are the countries who have provided "assistance" in Iraq

Multinational Forces in Iraq

The big kicker there is the key bar on the right hand side, and an awful lot of uncoloured landmass elsewhere. You'll note that the majority of countries that are coloured have less than 1000 personnell on the ground.

I guess the point I'm making is that maybe, just maybe, the POTUS should consider the rest of the world a little bit more when he wants to "change things for the better". The rest of the world may not agree with him, but his actions have implications for them as well.

And maybe Joe Lieberman needs to learn that lesson also.

Originally posted by the_sentinal
Am I Bush's keeper??? In the wake of 9/11 we saw the actions of Bush as nessesary to prevent another future attack.

So now you are going to tie the attack of Iran to 9/11 as well as justify the war in Iraq?

Tell me... how many people died that day? Less than the number of troops that died in Iraq not counting the wounded and maimed for life. Far less than the number of Iraqi civilians who have died left the country or are now refugees.

And you want to do more by using 9/11 to justify it?

This has nothing to do with 9/11, and if we weren’t occupying Iraq, Iran would not be the threat to the US you all make them out to be.

You should smell what you’re shoveling.