| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
venus
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Location: Near Seoul
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: Re: First Iraq - now Iran. |
 |
|
Sure, I have already posted an argument here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:18 pm Post subject: Re: First Iraq - now Iran. |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
Sure, I have already posted an argument here. |
here:
| Quote: |
This article is for all the doomsday sayers who say that war with Iran is inevitable. When Robert Gates replaced Rummy as head of the Defense Department last year, he came to fix Iraq and not attack Iran. For Bush, or Chaney, to attack Iran, he would have to go through Gates as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both Gates and the JCS fear that attacking Iran would bring more instability to the region and mess up Iraq even more. Remember, Gates was hired to fix Iraq and not make things more complicated.
Gates is also a lot more different that Rummy in his demeanor also. His old age Republican philosophy of speaking softly with a big stick works just as well professionally as it does personally. Gates lets people know he has been around in some of the most subtle ways. If you read the article, you'll know what I mean.
What I also found surprising is that as SecDef he called for the expansion of the State Department by hiring more Junior Service Officers, or junior diplomats. That has got to be one of the first time any cabinet secretary, especially of defense, has called for expansion of another cabinet department. Shocked
However, it is important to understand that Gates doesn't want to take military action off the table against Iran. Indeed, that would be stupid. Nonetheless, he and his military top military officers have gone out of their way to bring some praise to Tehran. He has also supported more diplomatic efforts with Iran. I agree that we should talk to Iran. If we are talking, then we are not fighting. That is a very good thing. Though we should talk with the full force of the US military and economy behind us. Like I said, speak softly with a big stick. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
even porn gets old joo... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
even porn gets old joo... |
only a sick mind comes to that conclusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a newbie, folks, so I'm sorry if this isn't a novel point, but, if the US does indeed declare war on Iran, does that not justify Iran having a nuclear deterrant (for their own protection)?
History suggests that the more nuclearized countries there are, the better. If every single country on this planet had nukes, nobody would be able to start a war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
I'm a newbie, folks, so I'm sorry if this isn't a novel point, but, if the US does indeed declare war on Iran, does that not justify Iran having a nuclear deterrant (for their own protection)?
History suggests that the more nuclearized countries there are, the better. If every single country on this planet had nukes, nobody would be able to start a war. |
would depend on the reason for the US declaring war.
besides the US having nuclear weapons didn't keep Al Qaeda from attacking it , nor did they keep Hizzbollah from attacking Israel.
Also one bigger nation might think they could ride out a nuclear attack from a smaller nation.
Would anyone think it is a good thing if Iran could threaten other gulf nations and say don't produce too much oil or we might just nuke you?
If the Taliban had nuclear weapons would that have been a good thing or a bad thing?
How about Pol Pot? Was Stalin's possesion of nuclear weapons a good thing?
Would have been a good thing if Nazi Germany had been taken down before they started WW II?
Would it have been a good thing if Nazi Germany had them?
Iran probably would like nuclear weapons so they could use Hizzbollah for terror and then use nuclear weapons to sheild themselves from retaliation.
the probable reason for the US releasing this report is that the US and Iran have probably come to an agreement on Iraq or the intel community wants to undermine Bush.
At anyrate the US still needs to invest in an insurance policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
would depend on the reason for the US declaring war.
besides the US having nuclear weapons didn't keep Al Qaeda from attacking it , nor did they keep Hizzbollah from attacking Israel.
Also one bigger nation might think they could ride out a nuclear attack from a smaller nation.
Would anyone think it is a good thing if Iran could threaten other gulf nations and say don't produce too much oil or we might just nuke you?
If the Taliban had nuclear weapons would that have been a good thing or a bad thing?
How about Pol Pot? Was Stalin's possesion of nuclear weapons a good thing?
Would have been a good thing if Nazi Germany had been taken down before they started WW II?
Would it have been a good thing if Nazi Germany had them?
Iran probably would like nuclear weapons so they could use Hizzbollah for terror and then use nuclear weapons to sheild themselves from retaliation.
the probable reason for the US releasing this report is that the US and Iran have probably come to an agreement on Iraq or the intel community wants to undermine Bush.
At anyrate the US still needs to invest in an insurance policy |
You are touching on reality here........I don't think it will go over too well.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:19 am Post subject: Re: First Iraq - now Iran. |
|
|
I am not here to defend the Bush administration.
The US intelligence community, until late 2006, thought that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.
It was also agreed by the EU Big 3.
This assumption, this unknown, was bolstered by Tehran's unwillingness to open up its sites to inspectors. The NIE report is probably based off of intelligence finally gathered when Tehran opened up its nuclear facilities to the IAEA.
Tehran was playing with fire the whole time. And they had reason to do so. They knew they could leverage ending their nuclear program for other, more tangible benefits in exchange. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
