Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Open your eyes. The rhetoric is gradually building. As long as the potential for a strike is in the airwaves, its being discussed by the American people (as we are doing here.) That's exactly what they want. Sending high-level military officials to talk about Iran on news programs is not happenstance. It's well thought-out posturing.
Meh - it's been discussed since way before the election - remember McCain singing? I am not seeing the frequency going up - it seems to pop up every few months. I guess I could be wrong on that, it's not as if I maintain a spreadsheet.
And Ahmedinejad was bleeding from the forehead from praying so hard for a US intervention. Just one little airstrike, and everybody not backing him could be painted as a traitor. That's what outside attacks do to a nation - they rally the population around their leadership. Don't fool yourself - the Iranians do not like their current regime, but they have no desire to become a US client state, either.
Just out of curiosity, what concrete action do you think would have improved the situation?
Very simple: Put aside the Milk And Cookies Diplomatic policy. The Iranians have no intent whatsoever to engage diplomatically. The President fails miserably in this arena. At the very least, he could have condemned the violence, and offered words of hope to the Iranian people. Did he? Absolutely not. Instead he was worried about his legacy, which he firmly believes will hinge on his ability to reason with dictators. It has not happened. It will not happen. The Iranian people were short-changed by his short-sightedness. Human rights abuses perpetrated right in front of his eyes. Nothing.
Very simple: Put aside the Milk And Cookies Diplomatic policy. The Iranians have no intent whatsoever to engage diplomatically. The President fails miserably in this arena. At the very least, he could have condemned the violence, and offered words of hope to the Iranian people. Did he? Absolutely not.
Looks to me like he condemned the violence pretty clearly:
Quote:
The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.
I'd say the rest of the opening part of the speech pretty much is one long encouragement the Iranian opposition, without giving the appearance of meddling. Because - and I may have mentioned this before - for the Iranian opposition to look like allies or agents of the US would kill the movement dead.
Reasonable people can certainly discuss whether the support should be more hawkish or doveish, it's one of these responsibilities I'm damn glad I'll never be faced with. But the US track record as regards openly influencing Iran is not good at all.
I'd say the rest of the opening part of the speech pretty much is one long encouragement the Iranian opposition, without giving the appearance of meddling. Because - and I may have mentioned this before - for the Iranian opposition to look like allies or agents of the US would kill the movement dead.
Reasonable people can certainly discuss whether the support should be more hawkish or doveish, it's one of these responsibilities I'm damn glad I'll never be faced with. But the US track record as regards openly influencing Iran is not good at all.
After he was called out by the world press and our own legislators for remaining silent on the issue. A day late, and a dollar short. As I said before, belated well-wishes is all they got from the Leader of the Free World. His legacy is all he had in mind. The Milk is sour and the Cookies are stale.
After he was called out by the world press and our own legislators for remaining silent on the issue.
So now the timing is the problem?
Quote:
As I said before, belated well-wished is all they got from the Leader of the Free World.
Ehm - no. What you said before was
Quote:
At the very least, he could have condemned the violence, and offered words of hope to the Iranian people. Did he? Absolutely not.
The President condemned the violence - he actually used that very word.
But OK, so you're unhappy with the response. Fair 'nuff, as I said, people can disagree.
Still, I'm looking for an alternate plan of action with a better chance of sucess. Earlier speech? Harsher speech? Assassination teams? Precise airstrikes? Massive Air, Sea and Land assault?
Perhaps a strike on Iran will be timed with the November elections in mind. I wouldn't rule out anything. A third war - OMG!!! How will this be financed?
we didnt need UN approval, number one, number two the UN did pass a resolution that allowed us to go in, and congress authorized the use of force.
now why did we not need UN approval you ask? a very good question, and the answer is very simple, there was NEVER a peace treaty signed between iraq and the coalition after the gulf war, thus a state of war still existed between the coalition and iraq. part of the cease fire agreement was allowing UN inspectors unfettered access to all of iraqi bases and government installations for inspection, and that unfettered access was never given. also there were two UN sanctioned no fly zones set up in iraq to be patrolled by coalition aircraft, and the iraqis constantly attacked coalition aircraft legally patrolling the no fly zone, an overt act of war, again a reason that we didnt need UN approval.
As usual for the righties, you're getting your time lines confused. Congress didn't authorize force by the way, not as you are implying. The UN inspectors were given access to all, and Saddam was cooperating. Some of the things you are referring to are from the 90's btw.
Looks like we have another illegal war to start with Iran...As Bush said there were WMD's in Iraq now this administration is going to use the same excuse except this time it we will start war based on Nuclear weapons of mass destruction...2 Presidents and one agenda...look behind the curtain of Oz!!!!!
We went in without UN approval. Rumsfeld and bush were lying up and down "They have MWD's and we know where they are" The UN inspectors found nothing. The bush admin lied saying saddam and iraq had ties to al-qaeda which they did not,..
You're pinning the tale on the wrong donkey.
Quote:
Saddam Hussein’s FBI Interviews Revealed | The Public Record
The agent does, however, assert with confidence that the U.S. side had information that Iraq was maintaining or developing a WMD capability and cites “evidence” of continuing contact between Iran and al-Qaeda, seemingly implying an operational relationship.
Some where in those documents, (I know because I read it) Hussien admits that he out right lied about having WMD.
Can you show me where we need UN approval, cause I don't think we do. It is nice to have congress approval, but it is necessary. There are rules of engagement and to my knowledge, Bush followed them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
