Korean Job Discussion Forums

[stevemcgarrett]

Seems like it. This just off the wire from The Associated Press:

Detained Iranians had ties to extremists

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_detained_iranians

Of course, Iran denies having done anything wrong but its protests are suspiciously and uncharacteristically subdued in their official response.

Iran is proving itself part of an axis of evil (even its university are in unrest over the repression) and has been for a long time. It clearly has opportunistic regional designs and its Shi'a revolution must be worrying the Saudis, Gulf States, Egyptians, and other Sunni states big time.

The question is not if but when the U.S. retaliates. The Israeli Air Force is ready and waiting to take out their nuclear facilities if we don't.

Right now it's just a waiting game.

Which will happen first: an American or Israeli military response?

Or does anyone out there actually think the UN Security Council can get the self-serving Russians and Chinese to join in a genuine united front against Iran, with whom they have lucrative economic ties?

[Milwaukiedave]

Yep..let's get into another war. Heck, we have lots of young people to sacrifice.

I agree Iran poses some problems, but starting another war would be stupid.

[Junior]

[Nowhere Man]

Is George Bush itching for a fight with Iran?

Better question: Is Stevemcgarret itching for a fight with Iran?

Maybe

and

YES!

[Milwaukiedave]

I'd like to know how many more troops will die in your war with Iran?

Who shall we invade after Iran?

Syria
North Korea
Cuba

[ddeubel]

IS IRAN ITCHING FOR ANOTHER WAR?

I don't know but I do know that a lot of "armchair arid adjudicators" such as yourself are....... Therein to paraphrase Socrates, lies the real problem, not knowing yourself and letting others take responsibility for your own actions... - self fulfilling fantasies yea are full of.

This is what I hate most about those with the "strike hard, talk later" attitude of diplomacy. They set everything up to happen a la, OK Corral and then when the other guy shows up say...... see, I told you he was a crook and murderous gun slinger!

Much of why the world is as murderous as ever.

DD

[Wangja]

Of course, that additional carrier sent to the Gulf is solely for use in "stabilising" Bagdhad, hundres of miles inland.

[stevemcgarrett]

ddeubel:

I suppose you're one of those who believe one you can negotiate in good faith with despots? If so, you're in good company as half of clueless socialized Western Europe has the same idea. Funny, isn't it that the Eastern Europeans don't, having lived under the boot of the Soviets for decades.

Iran has proven it doesn't deserve anyone's trust. How can we after their anti-Semitic bellicose rants against Israel? The outcry would have been enormous, though, if Israel had made the same declarations to the Iranians.

And how can you characterize collective self-defense as murderous?

Gee, MilwaukeeDave (former home of socialist mayors):

I don't know, that's a tough one. Cuba will tumble after Castro finally kicks the bucket, although it will take a few more years before his brother caves in. And North Korea is too paranoid to fool with right now. Better to let the Chinese lose their patience with their former Commie ally.

But, really, who said anything about invading Iran? I said we will likely have to fight them? I seriously doubt that includes invasion. And by the way, there are millions of Iranians in exile who would love to see the Islamic extremists fall. So it's not just our fight.

And if come down to saving Israel, so be it. The Jews are far more deserving of our concern than they are to many anti-Semitic Europeans, including a disproportionately large number of Russian officials.

So at what point would you get enough spine to say "enough is enough" to Iran? Let them acquire nuclear weapons capability while playing cat and mouse with the UN? Hmmm?

I disagree with you that the Bush administration WANTS another war. No American president wants to send soldiers into harm's way. If you believe otherwise, you're really cynical. On the other hand, some are more willing to use force. I myself wish to God it won't be necessary, but we cannot bury our heads in the sand and expect Iranian goodwill to prevail. To think so would be dangerously naive.

By the way, was it jumping to war when Clinton took us into Kosovo and Serbia?

Wangja:

I have a relative working as a naval intelligence officer in the Gulf and it is an open secret that the carrier force is being built up. One must have the option to launch a preemptive strike.

[cbclark4]

There a facilities in Iran that are being used to manufacture IEDs for use in Iraq. What should be done about that?

cbc

[alffy]

[alffy]

[NAVFC]

[VanIslander]

America will protect Israeli interests.

It's the rarely mentioned pillar of U.S. Middle East interventionist foreign policy.

[stevemcgarrett]

alffy:

Buy a vowel and get a clue. Your analogy is weak as usual. Selling arms in and of itself does not amount to complicity. But if a country like Iran is actively providing arms in the midst of an ongoing conflict to which it is not a party, that warrants a decisive response. Hope this clears the fog from your head.

Your axis of evil concerns are a good example of overanalysis. The phrase, by the way, was intended to conjure up the negative images associated with the axis alliance of Germany and Japan during WWII, not the organizational details. I know you'd prefer talk of "building bridges to the 21st century" but then we'd have to conclude Clinton's tired cliche by saying "...so that we can keep driving after terrorists blow one up."

[Wangja]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6261355.stm