Why Iran? - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-09-2007, 11:30 PM   #151
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
Well, that depends how you define imninent threat, and thats also not actually the guiding factor in taking decisive military action in this particular case.
It wasn't just the guiding factor, it was pretty much the only factor until they realized there were no WMDs. Then they suddenly changed the gameplan.
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 11:37 PM   #152
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


It wasn't just the guiding factor, it was pretty much the only factor until they realized there were no WMDs. Then they suddenly changed the gameplan.
The guiding factor was preventing Saddam from reconstituting the capabilities he had, both conventional and non-conventional military assets, that he had in August of 1990. The only way to insure that proved to be regime change, given the failure of the containment regime. Once the regime was removed from power, the above objective had been achieved, and the focus obviously turned to the necessary rebuilding of the country after 24 years of Saddam.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 03:23 AM   #153
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
You can read almost anything you want to when it comes to language. Did Jimmy's Carters statement that he was willing to use Nuclear Weapons to defend the Persian Gulf after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 mean that Jimmy Carter wanted to nuke the Soviet Union? Did Reagans comments during his administration mean he wanted to Nuke the Soviet Union? There were certainly politicians back then that attempted to make that arguement, but there was really no basis for it.
Was not alive during Carter's presidency, was just a toddler during the second term of Reagan's, so I cannot comment on those. I'd have to read up on/watch statements of theirs from those time periods to judge exactly what they said and how they said, figuring in the situation at the time as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
The vast majority of countries in the world do not have Nuclear Weapons and most countries are not active sponsers of terrorist organizations like Iran is, so the concern over Iran's movement towards a nuclear weapon is warrented and countries like China, the Soviet Union, Germany, France, the United States and the United Kingdom all agree on that point.
Whether the amount of countries that have nuclear weapons is a minority or a majority, the fact is that there are some countries out there, again, the U.S. included, that have them. Forgive Iran for being a bit confused as to why it's wrong for them to have the same weapons other countries are allowed to have. The U.S. has no room to be talking about who should and shouldn't be owning weapons. As for the terrorist thing, ya know, given that we're buddies with Saudi Arabia, again, we really should shut up and stop making ourselves look so hypocritical.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
I've not seen where Obama has ruled out using military force against Iran, and he even wrote a speech a while back that got the support of some people in the Neo-Conservative community.
I'd be interested to see that speech if possible. But from the stuff I've watched with him on TV, he seems to be pushing much more towards diplomacy. If he does happen to support military force, it's as an absolute LAST RESORT. But he's much more willing to try the diplomatic route first, unlike Bush, or unlike a lot of the Republican candidates out now.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
In addition, while Hillary voted to name the Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, Obama while he did not vote for the measure, did not vote against it either.
That doesn't prove what his stance is, though. Maybe he wanted to learn more about them before determining whether or not to vote them as a terrorist organization, or maybe he didn't see a point in voting on something like that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
The Iraq conflict occupy's much of the US military's active US Army and US Marine Corp, but the US Navy and US Air Force have more than enough assets to strike Iran and a few other places as well, given that Iraq is now overwhelmingly a ground operation. In addition, the US Guard and Reserve is not fully mobilized and could be if there was a war with Iran. So it is not necessarily so, that the Bush administration or the next administration has no military options while the United States is involved in Iraq.
Don't forget, though, that we are also low on money and funding for supplies. So even if we did happen to have enough troops for Iran, they won't be properly protected, and we can't afford to send them there to begin with. Which is why it'd be really wise if we just sat this one out, at least in the military sense (in the diplomatic sense we can get involved), and cleaned up the mess in Iraq instead.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 03:32 AM   #154
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 05:36 PM
It all makes sense now...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 02:24 PM   #155
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


Was not alive during Carter's presidency, was just a toddler during the second term of Reagan's, so I cannot comment on those. I'd have to read up on/watch statements of theirs from those time periods to judge exactly what they said and how they said, figuring in the situation at the time as well.



Whether the amount of countries that have nuclear weapons is a minority or a majority, the fact is that there are some countries out there, again, the U.S. included, that have them. Forgive Iran for being a bit confused as to why it's wrong for them to have the same weapons other countries are allowed to have. The U.S. has no room to be talking about who should and shouldn't be owning weapons. As for the terrorist thing, ya know, given that we're buddies with Saudi Arabia, again, we really should shut up and stop making ourselves look so hypocritical.



I'd be interested to see that speech if possible. But from the stuff I've watched with him on TV, he seems to be pushing much more towards diplomacy. If he does happen to support military force, it's as an absolute LAST RESORT. But he's much more willing to try the diplomatic route first, unlike Bush, or unlike a lot of the Republican candidates out now.



That doesn't prove what his stance is, though. Maybe he wanted to learn more about them before determining whether or not to vote them as a terrorist organization, or maybe he didn't see a point in voting on something like that.



Don't forget, though, that we are also low on money and funding for supplies. So even if we did happen to have enough troops for Iran, they won't be properly protected, and we can't afford to send them there to begin with. Which is why it'd be really wise if we just sat this one out, at least in the military sense (in the diplomatic sense we can get involved), and cleaned up the mess in Iraq instead.

Angela

Well, Iran did sign onto the NPT treaty and the United States as a permanent member of the Security Council has worked very hard to stop the spread of Nuclear Weapons as well as reducing its own Cold War stockpiles. Letting Iran develop nuclear weapons will only force countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey to consider doing the same. If your interested in stopping the spread of Nuclear Weapons around the world, then you should be very interested in trying to prevent rogue countries from trying to develop such weapons not simply because of the risk from such weapons in their hands, but because it forces other countries in the region to consider going the nuclear route as well.

There are 9 countries in the world today with Nuclear Weapons. The United States, France, United Kingdom, China, Russia, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Israel(undeclared). That leaves 183 countries that have not developed nuclear weapons and in order to keep it that way, the effort must be made to keep Iran from having such weapons and as well as getting North Korea to disarm.



Here are the statements by Obama that clearly show he is not ruling out using military force against Iran:


Quote:
Throughout the Middle East, we must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military -- could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria. Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing.Although we must not rule out using military force , we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran.

Quote:
Finally, we must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy -- the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use.
Here is the entire essay from Foreign Affairs whe the quotes come from:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200707...eadership.html

Dennis Kucinich is your man if you want someone who is completely against the use of military force in regards to Iran.


In terms of funding for the military, this is being increased, but its still only amounts to 4.5% of annual GDP. During the peacetime of the 1980s, the United States was spending 6% of its GDP on the military, so the United States could be spending a lot more on defense before it would start to show signs of serious strain. While the United States is behind in funding and replacing equipment for many military units, this can be fixed and the leading Republican and Democratic candidates have all pledged to increase defense spending in order to do this as quickly as possible. As to the situation right now, while the United States may not be able to send all of its active and reserve ground combat brigades over seas, it could still send the vast majority of them if the situation required it.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 02:47 PM   #156
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Making a guarantee that military force will not be used isn't smart: you don't know what events will transpire. But Obama is not like Giuliani, considering it a viable option RIGHT NOW.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 03:07 PM   #157
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
Making a guarantee that military force will not be used isn't smart: you don't know what events will transpire. But Obama is not like Giuliani, considering it a viable option RIGHT NOW.

will you stop!

your nuances blur the ability to obfuscate the issue.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 04:54 PM   #158
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
Making a guarantee that military force will not be used isn't smart: you don't know what events will transpire. But Obama is not like Giuliani, considering it a viable option RIGHT NOW.
Obama has never said that military force should be taken off the table right now, or during the next administration. The no military force option belongs to Kucinich and Gravel.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 04:56 PM   #159
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:36 PM
I never said he was taking it off the table...
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 04:59 PM   #160
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
I never said he was taking it off the table...
You implied that he did not consider it a viable option "RIGHT NOW" and that is not the case. It is an option, although both he and the Bush administration prefer to use economic and diplomatic options at the current time.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 05:02 PM   #161
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


You implied that he did not consider it a viable option "RIGHT NOW" and that is not the case. It is an option, although both he and the Bush administration prefer to use economic and diplomatic options at the current time.


but the bellicose, jingoist, "WW3" language used by the administration is worlds apart from the cautious level-headedness of Obama.

it's entirely disingenuous to say they have the same position.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 05:05 PM   #162
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
You implied that he did not consider it a viable option "RIGHT NOW" and that is not the case. It is an option, although both he and the Bush administration prefer to use economic and diplomatic options at the current time.
No, it is the case. Right now, being, like, today, or next month, without economic and diplomatic efforts first.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 05:12 PM   #163
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


No, it is the case. Right now, being, like, today, or next month, without economic and diplomatic efforts first.
But the option to strike is not off the table even with him at the moment and all the candidates are for trying some form of economic and diplomatic efforts first. None of the candidates are criticizing Bush for not having started into a military option against Iran.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 05:13 PM   #164
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
Well, Iran did sign onto the NPT treaty and the United States as a permanent member of the Security Council has worked very hard to stop the spread of Nuclear Weapons as well as reducing its own Cold War stockpiles.
Good. Glad to hear that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
Letting Iran develop nuclear weapons will only force countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey to consider doing the same. If your interested in stopping the spread of Nuclear Weapons around the world, then you should be very interested in trying to prevent rogue countries from trying to develop such weapons not simply because of the risk from such weapons in their hands, but because it forces other countries in the region to consider going the nuclear route as well.

There are 9 countries in the world today with Nuclear Weapons. The United States, France, United Kingdom, China, Russia, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Israel(undeclared). That leaves 183 countries that have not developed nuclear weapons and in order to keep it that way, the effort must be made to keep Iran from having such weapons and as well as getting North Korea to disarm.
Once again, if we want these other countries to disarm or if we want to stop them from making weapons, fine. I'd be more than happy to have little to no amount of nuclear weapons left in the world.

All I want then is for the U.S., and the other big countries you mentioned, to continue to reduce their pile and agree to not make more. It's the hypocrisy of the whole thing that bothers me. So long as we continue to keep our weapons and make more, don't be surprised if other countries want to do the exact same thing, as they want to defend themselves as much as anybody else does. That's all I'm saying. If they are to disarm, so must we. And it seems Obama agrees with me in this regard:

Quote:
We must also work with Russia to update and scale back our dangerously outdated Cold War nuclear postures and de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons. America must not rush to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads.
And speaking of him, like the others have said, just because he mentioned keeping the military option there doesn't mean that he's going to run to that as his first choice. The way those quotes are worded, it sounds to me like he wants to use military force as his absolute last resort. He's much more interested in diplomacy, which is one reason why I like him. And his speech also said that if we ever are to use military force, we HAVE to have the support of the rest of our allies before we do it, lest we get into another Iraq debacle.

Kucinich's stand is definitely the best one, though-that guy and I are pretty much on the same wavelength about everything, it seems.

That's a pretty interesting speech Obama had there, by the way, thanks for sharing that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
In terms of funding for the military, this is being increased, but its still only amounts to 4.5% of annual GDP. During the peacetime of the 1980s, the United States was spending 6% of its GDP on the military, so the United States could be spending a lot more on defense before it would start to show signs of serious strain. While the United States is behind in funding and replacing equipment for many military units, this can be fixed and the leading Republican and Democratic candidates have all pledged to increase defense spending in order to do this as quickly as possible. As to the situation right now, while the United States may not be able to send all of its active and reserve ground combat brigades over seas, it could still send the vast majority of them if the situation required it.
We're in debt, though. People can pledge to increase things all they want, but we're in a serious debt now...how exactly can we do that?

And while some troops are better than none, at the same time, the fact that we may not be able to send some over because we can't afford it or whatever is kind of a problem.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 05:16 PM   #165
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




but the bellicose, jingoist, "WW3" language used by the administration is worlds apart from the cautious level-headedness of Obama.

it's entirely disingenuous to say they have the same position.
Bush says "World War III", Obama says "nuclear flashpoints". Essentially the samething.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com