Hit 'um before they hit us.
Adolphmadjihad wants war, then lets give it to him before he gets the power to destroy the world.
Posted on 12/27/2006 7:06:03 PM PST by jmc1969
Complications abound in the region and hamfisted charges into the china shop (hows that for mixed metaphors?) are the last thing we are going to do. Of course, Nukes are the answers to every issue for some here.
War comes after diplomatic efforts fail. You cannot say that point has come yet. Sun Tsu maintains that war is the LAST resort it is far better to win without fighting.
We cannot truthfully say diplomacy has exhausted itself here or with NKorea.
If we cannot unify the American people war is out of the question in any case.
From the amateurish comments about war and peace I might have clicked into "Neanderthal.com" by mistake.
No, if I were I wouldn't be wasting time with folks like you.
Bush is not just the president of the VRWC but of the entire United States hence some of his policies will not be those of the VRWC. It really isn't complicated to those not defined by ideology. Imagine a politician using politics, what nerve.
Information releashed into the media and proveable facts are entirely different or have you forgotten the WMD fiasco?
None of that is going to happen no matter how much the RATS would like to do just that. They realize that they must show statesmenlike qualities after all they ran as moderates not leftists.
Should they pursue that course it will mean their defeat in 08. Hillary knows she cannot allow that only the fringe like Kucinich will urge that route.
There have been no "grand announcements". Iran has been at war with us for 27 years as the USSR was at war with us for 40. Neither case requires an invasion or military action except through proxies at this point.
You keep overlooking the fact that the American people have rejected a foreign policy which takes the fight to our enemies. How do you overcome that fact?
Glade you agreed with me, now some spelling and deep breathing exercise might help.
That's fine - I'm not saying that invasion/military action is necessarily the best course - but if we have decided that it isn't, we shouldn't be playing up the fact that Iran is fighting us! Because that is saying "we know you are fighting us, and we are going to do nothing about it." That has repercussions not only in the particular "cold/proxy war" against Iran, but for our "national honor" as well - in short, it makes us a more appealing target to others.
Also, your statement carries a presumption that the way we handled USSR was necessarily the optimal course. That's not necessarily correct! And even if it was, our calculated reluctance to engage USSR openly (thus influencing the way we behaved in Vietnam, etc.) had a rational basis, owing to the USSR's huge nuclear deterrent. But Iran has no such deterrent. Thus what we are saying to the world (not just to Iran, mind you!) at this time is: "When we know someone is engaging in acts of war against us, we will complain about it. Then we will do nothing of substance. Because we are very easily deterred. You don't even have to have nukes to deter us nowadays. We are scared even of attacking a country like Iran. That's how easily deterred we are."
Is this a good message to be sending to the world in your opinion? If your answer is "no", then what's your point? Because that's all I'm saying.
You keep overlooking the fact that the American people have rejected a foreign policy which takes the fight to our enemies. How do you overcome that fact?
The answer is: you don't overplay your hand. If you're right that the political will isn't there to sustain military action, that's ok, but then we need to shut up about Iran's fighting against us. It does no good whatsoever and makes us look absolutely weak to (a) openly acknowledge proof of Iran's complicity in a proxy war against us but then (b) do nothing of substance besides the talking. If you disagree (and you seem to, since you keep responding..), then tell me how it helps to jibber-jabber about Iran and nothing more?
I am one of the few on this thread NOT hyperventilating and drooling at the prospect of MOABing someone or something.
How is the NY Times or any other media outlet printing claims of Iranian involvement "...playing up the fact that Iran is fighting us..."?
But if a military action was on the horizon then the administration would have to be revealing the actions Iran has taken against US forces in order to prepare the US population for that action. It could not be sprung out of nowhere.
There is no fear of attacking Iran wrt its activities. The real fear should be that we go into an action and have the lily-lived American people undermine and reject it. Our principle enemy is at home not in Iran.
Nor has there been much of anything that can be called real proof of Iranian government involvement.
They wouldn't have had anything to print if no one had made the "claims". Who is making the claims? I am saying that (unless we're planning a military response, which I doubt) those people should shut up for the time being - that is all I am saying. Can you really defend the notion that it's good for people to be blabbing to the NYT about this? If so, go ahead, but you haven't done so thus far. You've been arguing with me for some reason, without actually apprehending what I've been saying.
But if a military action was on the horizon then the administration would have to be revealing the actions Iran has taken against US forces in order to prepare the US population for that action. It could not be sprung out of nowhere.
You are 100% correct. Therefore, this blabbing is fine if - and only if - a military action is on the horizon. But if not? Then it is stupid.
THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING. Please stop wasting my time "arguing" with me if you don't have a real disagreement with me.
There is no fear of attacking Iran wrt its activities. The real fear should be that we go into an action and have the lily-lived American people undermine and reject it.
In other words, Iran - thus, anyone - can deter us via exploiting our political system and weak-kneed polity. That is not a good message to telegraph to the world. Is it? If you think it is, make the argument. If you don't, then PLEASE stop "arguing" with me because you don't actually have a dispute with me.
Nor has there been much of anything that can be called real proof of Iranian government involvement.
I disagree but anyway it's not worth discussing if we're not gonna do anything about it either way, which I don't think we are. Do you?
My beef with you is over the impatience you show wrt actions against Iran.
As to things printed in the NY Times. They come from any number of unauthorized sources as you should be well aware. Or are you claiming the paper is a mouthpiece for the administration? My argument with you in this respect is because you are assuming this is coming from the Administration rather than the moles within the bureaucracy working against it.
Apparently you believe our enemies are such fools they cannot see and work through the weaknesses within our system. We need not telegraph anything about it to them it has been common knowledge for at least 40 years and used over and over.
And, Yes, I do believe there will be something done about Iran but it may not fit your timetable.
Which is to say: you think you have a beef with me because you HAVEN'T BOTHERED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M ACTUALLY SAYING even though I've repeated my position multiple times.
I am most definitely NOT saying we need to take action against Iran. I am probably not informed enough to know the advisability of doing so. ALL I am saying is that, if we aren't going to take action against Iran, then openly complaining about their proxy war against us is worse than useless, it is counterproductive.
But your responses show that you haven't bothered to read my posts very carefully. You are bound and determined to have a disagreement with me, even if that means ignoring everything I've been saying and pretending I'm saying something else.
That's my beef with you. It's ok not to read my posts at all carefully, but don't waste my time arguing with me if you don't.
As to things printed in the NY Times. They come from any number of unauthorized sources as you should be well aware. Or are you claiming the paper is a mouthpiece for the administration? My argument with you in this respect is because you are assuming this is coming from the Administration rather than the moles within the bureaucracy working against it.
Um, the story begins "The US military said on Tuesday...". Did you read it? Is "the US military" a mole?
Anyway, I said nothing about "the Administration". WHOMEVER is blabbing to the New York Times should shut the hell up.
Apparently you believe our enemies are such fools they cannot see and work through the weaknesses within our system. We need not telegraph anything about it to them it has been common knowledge for at least 40 years and used over and over.
There's a difference between people being able to figure out that you are weak, and openly saying "I am weak". If you disagree with me, that's ok, but that's what I think.
"Complications abound in the region and hamfisted charges into the china shop (hows that for mixed metaphors?) are the last thing we are going to do. Of course, Nukes are the answers to every issue for some here."
Diplomatic efforts have no chance at all unless we could get China and Russia on our side and I don't see that happening. Iran will get a nuke unless we stop them with force. There comes a time when we need to realize that we aren't going to find a diplomatic solution that works. Should we keep looking for one until it's to late and Iran has a nuclear weapon?
Honestly I would rather use a nuclear weapon against Iran than allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Although I'm not saying that's what we should do if we do use force.
I agree. Either we begin to stomp the living shit out of Iran, or shut the hell up.
It wont change their stock price.
US might as well support an Iraqi Army coup of the government to put the seculars in
Interesting timing on this announcement, what with a new Congress coming aboard. Is this a last ditch attempt to smear the Republicans, saying they had proof but did nothing? Or is it a case of the administration lobbing the hot potato over to the new Congress?
Or it will go down the Orwellian memory hole?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.