18
   

War! The fear mongering is here, again!

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2012 03:00 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You don't know history too well.

Iran is at the top of the list when it comes to state sponsored terrorism.



I've started my stopwatch to see how long it takes JTT to respond to this by reminding us that the US is the biggest of global bogeymen.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2012 04:31 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You don't know history too well.

Iran is at the top of the list when it comes to state sponsored terrorism.



I've started my stopwatch to see how long it takes JTT to respond
to this by reminding us that the US is the biggest of global bogeymen.
Is he stalking u ?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2012 05:48 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
You might say so, but having remarked on his expected response, I expect it will now never arrive.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2012 06:04 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
They were both cowed into submission, both have autocratic figures who are paid to do America's bidding. Now Mubarak has gone Egypt has every reason to be wary.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2012 06:05 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Israel murduring European scientists in Europe to stop them working for Egypt doesn't count as terrorism then?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2012 08:27 pm
@RABEL222,
"Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."

- Jerry Garcia

Quote:
If I wanted a warmonger in the white house I would have voted for a republican.


You sure don't know much about American history, Rabel. They've all been war mongers.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2012 08:46 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
revelette wrote:
I mean, what has Iran done that has labelled it a terrorist state?


It's simple, Revelette. They pissed the USA off by taking back their own country from the war criminals. This is the same reaction that the US has taken against numerous third world nations, eg. Nicaragua and Vietnam.

The US loves to punish those people who have the temerity to want to run their own country, to control their own resources.

Quote:

Oralboy: Murdered hundreds of US Marines with suicide bombers.

No contest. The US has murdered millions.

Oralboy: Kidnapped innocent civilians and held them for years for no reason.

No contest. Guantanamo, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Chile, Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, the Philippines, ... .

Oralboy: Murdered dozens of US soldiers in Saudi Arabia, again with suicide bombers.

Source. Your little war game doesn't count as a source, oralboy

Oralboy: Supplied insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan with deadly weapons.

No contest. The US has supplied insurgents, brutal dictators, madmen like Pol Pot; they supplied Saddam and pushed him to launch a war against Iran. The US supplied and countenanced the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran. The list is exceedingly lengthy.

The US is so far ahead in this terrorist game. There isn't anyone that comes close. An accumulation of all the terrorists in the world probably doesn't come close to the cumulative terrorist actions of the US of over a century.


JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2012 09:08 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
You don't know history too well.

Iran is at the top of the list when it comes to state sponsored terrorism.


That is, ho hum, another bald faced lie from Finn d'Liar.

If you had thought for even a millisecond, Finn, you would have realized how easily you would get caught in this lie. But that's never stopped you before, has it?

The US had been going at this terrorist game long before it was even called terrorism. They started with Blacks and Native Americans and they expanded it into the Philippines and Central and South America.

0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 08:30 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
The US has murdered millions.


No we haven't.



JTT wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
Kidnapped innocent civilians and held them for years for no reason.


No contest. Guantanamo, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Chile, Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, the Philippines,


Most of those places, we never held anyone.

In the few where we did hold people, it was because they were enemy soldiers captured and being held as a POW.



JTT wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
Murdered dozens of US soldiers in Saudi Arabia, again with suicide bombers.


Source. Your little war game doesn't count as a source, oralboy


If you want a source, you'll need to ask without engaging in lies and namecalling.



JTT wrote:
The US has supplied ... madmen like Pol Pot;
JTT wrote:
The US supplied and countenanced the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran.


The US did nothing of the sort.



JTT wrote:
The US is so far ahead in this terrorist game. There isn't anyone that comes close. An accumulation of all the terrorists in the world probably doesn't come close to the cumulative terrorist actions of the US of over a century.


As has already been pointed out, the US has not targeted civilians in the past hundred years, and therefore has not engaged in terrorism in the past hundred years.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 08:35 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Now Mubarak has gone Egypt has every reason to be wary.


When Israel retakes the Sinai they will be able to rebuild their old settlements there.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 08:36 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
There is nothing blind about it. It's just a fact that Israel are the good guys, and are our allies.


gee, you mean like Iran once was and Pakistan still supposedly is

revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 09:33 am
In any event; the people chomping at the bit to bomb Iran act as though all they have to do is strike Iran's nuclear weapons site, hit it dead on, then the whole Iran nuclear power issue will be resolved. They act as though there will no repercussions from all sorts of areas in the region. Won't the whole middle east basically explode if Israel strikes Iran and aren't they in a vulnerable position sitting there all by themselves in the middle east? Won't the US have to be dragged into war whether we want to or not in order to save Israel? Any gains in the economy will go away, the gas prices will make today's look cheap. We are still in Afghanistan and still issues with Iraq. Most of Americans do not want to go to war with Iran. Most Israelis don't want to go to war Iran.

Quote:
Only 22 percent of Israelis believe that a military strike by Israel would delay Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by at least five years; another 22 percent estimate a delay of three to five years. Nine percent of Israelis believe the delay would be only one or two years. Thirty percent of the respondents believe a strike would either have no effect on the Iranian program or would accelerate it.
Asked what the effect of an Israeli strike would be on the Iranian government, respondents were evenly split between those who believe a strike would weaken the Iranian regime and those who believe it would be strengthened.
On the key question of whether Israel should launch such a strike notwithstanding the fact that the United States and powers advise against it, only 19 percent of Israelis favor a strike even in the face of US opposition. Thirty-four percent oppose a strike no matter what. A plurality — 42 percent — would back a strike only if it had at least the support of the United States.


source


The sanctions are being felt in Iran, why not let the sanctions work and try diplomacy for awhile longer. That prime minister of Israel sounds just like George Bush right before the invasion of Iraq and we all know how terrible that turned out.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 09:41 am
Former CIA chief: Military is 'bad option' against Iran

Washington (CNN) -- Former CIA acting director John McLaughlin said the United States can engage Iran through diplomacy, sanctions or military action, but warned the latter choice "would be a very bad option."

Speaking during a panel discussion in Washington Tuesday, McLaughlin, who served as acting director of the CIA in 2004, said direct military action with Iran could grow to involve Hezbollah, the militant group based in Lebanon.

"One of the reasons (military action is a bad option) is that Iran does have this relationship with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has not attacked American interests in recent years, but has lots of plans on the library shelf for doing that in the event we got into a confrontation with Iran," McLaughlin explained.

"And Hezbollah of course has been present in the United States, at least in fundraising. And so one of the big problems with Iran is if you get into an open confrontation, a military confrontation, you risk a cycle of retaliation and response with great difficulty seeing where the end point is," he added.
On another subject, McLaughlin said the 2011 U.S. drone killing of American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki has not had a big impact operationally on Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the Yemen-based group in which al-Awlaki served as a spokesman.

McLaughlin said AQAP now controls, or exercises influence in, about half of Yemen and the group continues to have several worrisome characteristics.
"One, they move fast," he said. It took the group only two or three months to mobilize Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the so-called Underwear Bomber, charged in the Christmas Day 2009 bombing attack on a Northwest Airlines jet. McLaughlin called the plot a "pick-up game" that took the organization only two or three months to plan.

AQAP also knows how to spread terror economically, McLaughlin said. "They're cheap. Their (October 2010 toner cartridge) package bomb operation, by their own estimate, cost them about $4,200," he said.

And they have a strategy. They "basically attack us where they can," he said.
Speaking at the same forum, President Barack Obama's former national security adviser said he believes 2012 will be a pivotal year in dealing with Iran, which experts believe is creating materials for a nuclear weapon.
"I think 2012 has seen itself as the year that Iran has got to be dealt with one way or the other," said James L. Jones, who served as national security adviser from January 2009 until October 2010.

The Iranian nuclear threat jeopardizes Israel, could spark a nuclear arms race in the region, and could provide a way for a non-state actor to get a nuclear weapon, Jones said. "And if that happens, I think that the world that we live in changes dramatically."

Jones said Washington has successfully rallied nations to take economic sanctions against Tehran, and that other countries also are beginning to "really tighten the screws on Iran."

"I think Iran knows that. I think that's one of the reasons that we're seeing the bellicose behavior of Iranian forces in the Arabian Gulf, or threatening the Strait of Hormuz," he said.

McLaughlin and Jones spoke during a panel discussion sponsored by the Aspen Homeland Security Group.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 06:49 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
There is nothing blind about it. It's just a fact that Israel are the good guys, and are our allies.


gee, you mean like Iran once was and Pakistan still supposedly is


Yes.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 06:51 pm
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
In any event; the people chomping at the bit to bomb Iran act as though all they have to do is strike Iran's nuclear weapons site, hit it dead on, then the whole Iran nuclear power issue will be resolved.


Not quite resolved exactly. Iran will have to be re-bombed every year to prevent them from rebuilding.



revelette wrote:
They act as though there will no repercussions from all sorts of areas in the region. Won't the whole middle east basically explode if Israel strikes Iran and aren't they in a vulnerable position sitting there all by themselves in the middle east?


Nah. Israel will likely have some ballistic missiles fired at them like happened in 1991, but they'll survive that.



revelette wrote:
Won't the US have to be dragged into war whether we want to or not in order to save Israel?


We may be dragged in (if Obama succeeded in getting Netanyahu to wait, we'll probably even be the ones conducting the bombing to begin with). But if we get involved, it will not because of any danger to Israel.



revelette wrote:
Any gains in the economy will go away, the gas prices will make today's look cheap. We are still in Afghanistan and still issues with Iraq. Most of Americans do not want to go to war with Iran. Most Israelis don't want to go to war Iran.


That does not change the fact that war with Iran is going to be necessary.

(Unless of course they change course on nuclear weapons, but fat chance of that happening.)



Quote:
Only 22 percent of Israelis believe that a military strike by Israel would delay Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by at least five years; another 22 percent estimate a delay of three to five years. Nine percent of Israelis believe the delay would be only one or two years. Thirty percent of the respondents believe a strike would either have no effect on the Iranian program or would accelerate it.


There is no question that blowing up Iran's nuclear program will set it back.



revelette wrote:
The sanctions are being felt in Iran, why not let the sanctions work and try diplomacy for awhile longer.


Sanctions and diplomacy have been going on for years now. How much time are we supposed to give them?

In any case, the answer to your question depends on how much longer you propose waiting. It would defeat the purpose to wait so long that Iran has begun to deploy nuclear weapons for example.

Also, bombing Iran will require blowing up a number of nuclear reactor sites. If we bomb them before they begin operating, there will be little problem. But if we wait until the reactors are operating before we bomb them, there will be meltdowns that will make Chernobyl look minor by comparison. I expect India will grumble a bit if they have to evacuate and abandon the northern half of their country.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 07:04 pm
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
Former CIA chief: Military is 'bad option' against Iran

Washington (CNN) -- Former CIA acting director John McLaughlin said the United States can engage Iran through diplomacy, sanctions or military action, but warned the latter choice "would be a very bad option."


All the options are bad, all in their own unique ways. We just have to choose which one of the bad options we want to go with.

We've decided to go with the military option, but to wait until the last possible moment before we begin bombing.



revelette wrote:
Speaking during a panel discussion in Washington Tuesday, McLaughlin, who served as acting director of the CIA in 2004, said direct military action with Iran could grow to involve Hezbollah, the militant group based in Lebanon.

"One of the reasons (military action is a bad option) is that Iran does have this relationship with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has not attacked American interests in recent years, but has lots of plans on the library shelf for doing that in the event we got into a confrontation with Iran," McLaughlin explained.

"And Hezbollah of course has been present in the United States, at least in fundraising. And so one of the big problems with Iran is if you get into an open confrontation, a military confrontation, you risk a cycle of retaliation and response with great difficulty seeing where the end point is," he added.


If Iran wishes to rally the American people to view them as our main enemy in the war on terror, I'm sure the American people will oblige them.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2012 08:21 pm
@oralloy,
If you are really interested in just how friendly the Isrelie state is toward the U.S google The USS liberty coverup. You stated once they were in the wrong place at the wrong time which is bullshit because they were in international waters when Israel attacked the USS Liberty. I am not going to paste 500 paragraphs of information but if your are interested in the truth look up The USS Liberty Incendent. Just so you know I am an American citizen and you sure as hell dont speak for me or for the majority of us.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 12:53 am
@RABEL222,
The Liberty incident was a case of friendly fire, nothing more. I'm tired of all the whining about it.

It is correct language for me to use "we" when referring to things that the United States intends to do, and the United States is resolved to bomb Iran should that prove necessary to do in order to stop their nuclear weapons program.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 07:18 am
Quote:
Mitt Romney’s oped in today’s Washington Post claimed — without offering any evidence — that Iran has a “nuclear-bomb program” and that the Islamic Republic is “racing to build a nuclear bomb.” Currently, U.S. intelligence and the IAEA do not believe either of these claims to be true.

But Romney’s disregard for the facts was noticed not just in Washington. Former Israeli Mossad director Efraim Halevy said that Romney’s militaristic talk could induce the Iranians to rush to acquire nuclear weapons in order to deter an attack if the former Massachusetts governor were to assume the presidency in January 2013. Halevy warned that Romney is effectively “telling the Iranians, ‘You better be quick about it,’” in an interview with the Huffington Post. Halevy explained:

f I’m sitting here in the month of March 2012 reading this, and I’m an Iranian leader, what do I understand? I have nine more months to run as fast as I can because this is going to be terrible if the other guys get in.
Halevy went on to observe, “In the effort to demolish the president [Romney] is making the situation worse.”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said an attack would only delay Iran’s nuclear program and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey warned that military action “could carry unforeseen risks.”
The bellicose rhetoric of the campaign trail, which often incorporates accusations that Obama has been insufficiently protective of Israel’s security in the face of an Iranian nuclear threat, has stood in stark contrast to the messages coming out of Israel’s intelligence and security communities. Indeed, the IAEA has expressed concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program but neither U.N. nuclear inspectors nor U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program.

In February, former Israeli intelligence chief Meir Dagan disagreed with the characerization of Iran as an “existential threat” to Israel and current Israeli intelligence chief Tamir Pardo reportedly told a gathering of Israeli ambassadors in December that Iran doesn’t pose an “existential threat” and “the term existential threat is used too freely.”

Also in February, Israeli Lt. Gen. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak reported that the Israeli military’s leadership doesn’t support a strike on Iran and the AP disclosed that Israel’s incoming air force chief Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel is “less enthusiastic about a possible attack on Iran” than the current air force chief, according to defense officials.

The White House also noticed Romney’s efforts to beat the war drums. Speaking today, Obama challenged Iran-hawks to “explain to the American people exactly why [we should launch a war] and what the consequences would be.” A growing number of defense and intelligence elites in Israel seem to think the costs of war with Iran far outweigh the consequences to the Jewish state.


source

izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 07:54 am
@revelette,
All this at a time where Iran has returned to the negotiating table.

Quote:
Six major world powers and Iran are to hold fresh talks on Tehran's nuclear programme, the EU has said.

EU foreign policy head Catherine Ashton said she had replied to a letter from Iran on behalf of the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17274364
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.18 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 06:49:07