| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I'm a little puzzled. It seems your version of 'protecting national security' is focused on overthrowing foreign governments. I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Anyway, we haven't been all that successful in our current MidEast adventure. |
In the above case it would have been preventing the overthrow of a foreign leader. And getting one who would be out of the picture.
Once these guys are in power it is difficult to get them out of power but before they are in power - well that is another story. Remember it takes these creeps some time before they get their security apparatus up and running. See how the US got Al Qaeda out of Somalia? Prevention often easier than the cure. Washing your hands prevents you from getting sick.
Remember Khomeni was just as bad as or worse than the Shah so the US is in the clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Not all posters are equally reasonable on all subjects. Ya-ta boy is a nice poster, but he's incapable of discussing anything to do with Ron Paul. Some are good at current events but suddenly regress into jr. high logic when the subject is religion, some see an anti-American shadow behind innocent posts, and others the opposite. Joo of course listens unless the subject is khomeini etc., and will carry on flame wars (complete with comments like 'too bad your parents didn't use a condom the night they had you' when the debate heats up) for pages at a time. A lot of posters are 95% reasonable but can turn quite bull-headed when a certain subject comes up, and only a few (on the other hand for example) are capable of talking levelheadedly about anything and everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't see the logic in your jumping off point, Joo. Is the issue just that Iran is causing problems for the US now in a geopolitical sense? What of other countries or world leaders that plague the US? Is not by your reasoning Reagan/Bush Sr. ultimately responsible for Osama? Is Clinton responsible for Putin? Or Eisnehower responsible for the existence of North Korea? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Not all posters are equally reasonable on all subjects. Ya-ta boy is a nice poster, but he's incapable of discussing anything to do with Ron Paul. Some are good at current events but suddenly regress into jr. high logic when the subject is religion, some see an anti-American shadow behind innocent posts, and others the opposite. Joo of course listens unless the subject is khomeini etc., and will carry on flame wars (complete with comments like 'too bad your parents didn't use a condom the night they had you' when the debate heats up) for pages at a time. A lot of posters are 95% reasonable but can turn quite bull-headed when a certain subject comes up, and only a few (on the other hand for example) are capable of talking levelheadedly about anything and everything. |
My view on Iran is exactly halfway between Obama and Cheney. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| I don't see the logic in your jumping off point, Joo. Is the issue just that Iran is causing problems for the US now in a geopolitical sense? What of other countries or world leaders that plague the US? Is not by your reasoning Reagan/Bush Sr. ultimately responsible for Osama? Is Clinton responsible for Putin? Or Eisnehower responsible for the existence of North Korea? |
Irans' revolution could have been stopped. Iran is a major enemy. One doesn't get many chances to take down a major enemy before they come to power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's possible that Iran's revolution could have been stopped? I love the "what if in history" game as much as anyone, but you can never be certain. Laying it at Carter's feet is unreasonable. Maybe it was Carter's fault, but Obama and Carter are two different people. You could easily argue that if Bush Sr. had ballsed up and gone after Saddam, or even just supported the uprising against Saddam with weapons and air support, that we wouldn't be in the mess we are right now. Does that mean that all conservatives are weak when it comes to finishing a military conflict? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
It was the greatest preventable strategic loss in US history.
The cost of a failure to act is imeasurable. It was a far bigger loss than leaving Saddam in power.If Iran doesn't go to the Khomeni followers then Saddam , and Al Qaeda would have been easy to deal with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
It was the greatest preventable strategic loss in US history.
The cost of a failure to act is imeasurable. It was a far bigger loss than leaving Saddam in power.If Iran doesn't go to the Khomeni followers then Saddam , and Al Qaeda would have been easy to deal with. |
So Truman is responsible for Mao as well? And George Washington for Napoleon? And Van Buren for the Opium War? What about the Boxer Rebellion? Eisenhower for Dien Bien Phu?
What intel did Carter have to deal with?
| Quote: |
The growing network of Islamic institutions almost went unnoticed by Iran�s secret police. The Shah remained concerned about secular democrats and the left; he believed the clergy�who shared his hostility to these elements�were his strategic allies. He also believed that the enfranchised peasantry, grateful for the land he had given them, would come to his defense. He was wrong. Nor could the Iranian middle classes be bribed into political silence in return for a better economic life. The revolution was at least partially the result of this miscalculation.
|
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.6/milani.php
Carter urged the Shah to liberalize to placate certain factions of Iran that were against the Shah, and these factions saw Khomeini as a figure to use to depose the Shah and int turn be deposed. K. was, however, too wily for them. How would a conservative worldview prevented this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
It was the greatest preventable strategic loss in US history.
The cost of a failure to act is imeasurable. It was a far bigger loss than leaving Saddam in power.If Iran doesn't go to the Khomeni followers then Saddam , and Al Qaeda would have been easy to deal with. |
I'm not sure I've made it clear since you haven't answered the question.
What does Carter being "liberal" have to do with his lack of attack against Iran?
What does any of this have to do with an idictment of Obama? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote"]
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
It was the greatest preventable strategic loss in US history.
The cost of a failure to act is imeasurable. It was a far bigger loss than leaving Saddam in power.If Iran doesn't go to the Khomeni followers then Saddam , and Al Qaeda would have been easy to deal with. |
| Quote: |
| So Truman is responsible for Mao as well? And George Washington for Napoleon? And Van Buren for the Opium War? What about the Boxer Rebellion? Eisenhower for Dien Bien Phu? |
No Iran was preventable.
| Quote: |
| What intel did Carter have to deal with? |
Khomeni's statements
| Quote: |
The growing network of Islamic institutions almost went unnoticed by Iran�s secret police. The Shah remained concerned about secular democrats and the left; he believed the clergy�who shared his hostility to these elements�were his strategic allies. He also believed that the enfranchised peasantry, grateful for the land he had given them, would come to his defense. He was wrong. Nor could the Iranian middle classes be bribed into political silence in return for a better economic life. The revolution was at least partially the result of this miscalculation.
|
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.6/milani.php
| Quote: |
| Carter urged the Shah to liberalize to placate certain factions of Iran that were against the Shah, and these factions saw Khomeini as a figure to use to depose the Shah and int turn be deposed. K. was, however, too wily for them. How would a conservative worldview prevented this? |
Assassinate Khomeni , or throw him in secret prison never to be heard from again.
then support the Shah |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
It was the greatest preventable strategic loss in US history.
The cost of a failure to act is imeasurable. It was a far bigger loss than leaving Saddam in power.If Iran doesn't go to the Khomeni followers then Saddam , and Al Qaeda would have been easy to deal with. |
I'm not sure I've made it clear since you haven't answered the question.
What does Carter being "liberal" have to do with his lack of attack against Iran?
What does any of this have to do with an idictment of Obama? |
Attacking Iran was not needed , make Khomeni disapear (he was in France) and support the Shah.
I have to recheck this but Carter would not supply the Shah with the stuff needed to stop like Rubber bullets water cannons and other stuff to stop Khomeni's revolution.
He also made demands on the Shah pressured him to lay off his enemies.
How out of touch was Carter? His UN guy Andrew Young called the Aytollah Khomeni a saint.
Liberals won't do bad stuff to take down bad actors even if allowing the bad actors to win is a bad thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| My view on Iran is exactly halfway between Obama and Cheney. |
So then you believe we need a pre-emptive strike against Iran, and the nuclear option is not off the table. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| My view on Iran is exactly halfway between Obama and Cheney. |
So then you believe we need a pre-emptive strike against Iran, and the nuclear option is not off the table. |
I think the US ought to talk to Iran
I don't think the US ought to bomb Iran - not now.
Off course no option ought to be off the table.
However the US needs to invest in an Insurance Policy just in case. You never know.
I like our chances.
Iran can have nuclear weapons but they can not be allowed the advantages of possessing them.
If Iran uses nuclear weapons to threaten others in order to shield itself from suffering the consequences of supporting acts of terror then the US ought to use such a system to disarm Iran for good.
If Iran is big enough to have nuclear weapons then they are big enough know what it is like to have an arms race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If the US gets its energy policy in order and gets the correct weapons the US will find that negotiations with Iran are easy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm sorry, but I think you're just trolling with this. Assumptions do what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
