Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

Fearandloathing said:

Repeating yourself makes less sense...

You said all US problems in the middle east began with George Bush's invasion of Iraq.

That's wrong and you won't admit it.

I don't think you are to be believed and I know you cannot define what is a "neo con" it's socialist propaganda. I guess the Democrats who voted in favor of that invasion are "neo cons" as well...

Good bye

Click to expand...

I think your mixing me with someone else. But my point still stands.

Fearandloathing said:

?

Started with the invasion of Iraq?

I seem to recall an event some years way before when Iran committed an act of war against the US by attacking and kidnapping US citizens and diplomats. Then there was this little issue where the skies over America had to be shut down for two or three days because some middle eastern Islamic 'nice guys who need jobs' managed to elude US security for years, fool the CIA and almost destroy the pentagon and a large chunk of New York City.

Before that there was the "Cole", the embassy bombings and who can forget Reagan's bombing of Ghaddafy's house.

Oh yeah the invasion of Afghanistan was in there too, a war approved by almost every Democrat in the country

Yep, it's all new and George W. Bush invented it

Click to expand...

Iran is Shia, Baghdad was Sunni when Saddam was in power, its mostly Shia now.
President Reagan supported Saddam because he was the enemy of the enemy. Presdent Bush's invasion of iraq screwed that whole relationship and empowered Iran beef up their nuke program.

How does Iran relate to 911?
How does the bombing of the Cole relate to either Iraq or Iran and not OBL?
What was the reason for destabling the ME by invading Iraq?
BTW, how did those hostages get home?

kjwins said:

All this proves is that propaganda is a bitch. Not even any content in the vid. What does this have to do with GWB ****ing up the ME.

Click to expand...

That what Bush Jr had to deal with.....goes back to Clinton and his policies. Playing catch up after Democratic Control. Repubs one step forward two steps back. Demos one step back, then 3 more....then its fall down and everybody hit the floor.


Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance.....

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq. The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world. "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton. Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained......snip~

CNN - Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998

azgreg said:

Tom Cotton is a dip****. The entire state of Arkansas needs to be drug tested for electing him.

Click to expand...

Speaking of drug-testing, Cotton and the rest of the clowns in DC, both parties,
should be made to take the same drug tests they force on the public through legislation.

Our Armed Forces, Police, Firemen, Teachers, Prison Guards, Trade Unions--the list is endless--are all drug-tested.

The "Leaders" of this Nation should be out front on this issue, versus just do as I say .

MMC said:

That what Bush Jr had to deal with.....goes back to Clinton and his policies. Playing catch up after Democratic Control. Repubs one step forward two steps back. Demos one step back, then 3 more....then its fall down and everybody hit the floor.

Click to expand...

It always goes back to administrative overlap--always has.
Revisionist history against just one party has a well-known name.

What shape was Iraq in when the USA was feeding their war machine against Iran in the 1980s?
When we were also involved with multiple arms deals with the Iranians ?

a351 said:

:doh Drones are not indiscriminate. In fact, they're among the most precise and humane forms of warfare in the history of mankind.

Click to expand...

And would most definitely have been used by McCain or Romney .

NIMBY said:

It always goes back to administrative overlap--always has.
Revisionist history against just one party has a well-known name.

What shape was Iraq in when the USA was feeding their war machine against Iran in the 1980s?
When we were also involved with multiple arms deals with the Iranians ?

Click to expand...

Notice how if you use the word Iran.....how Bill Clinton's words still Rings true.

If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained......snip~

Click to expand...

MMC said:

That what Bush Jr had to deal with.....goes back to Clinton and his policies. Playing catch up after Democratic Control. Repubs one step forward two steps back. Demos one step back, then 3 more....then its fall down and everybody hit the floor.


Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance.....

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq. The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world. "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton. Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained......snip~

CNN - Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998

Click to expand...

For one I hate Bill Clinton more than Bush.

Two, Bush attacked Iraq for oil. Not any threat to the US.

Three, Dick Cheney said years earlier, under GHWB that if we removed Saddam it would destabilize the ME. They knew this & did it anyway.

It was about money, power, & oil. Not some made up threat.

kjwins said:

For one I hate Bill Clinton more than Bush.

Two, Bush attacked Iraq for oil. Not any threat to the US.

Three, Dick Cheney said years earlier, under GHWB that if we removed Saddam it would destabilize the ME. They knew this & did it anyway.

It was about money, power, & oil. Not some made up threat.

Click to expand...

Not counting the first sentence, AMEN!

And in the first sentence, Clinton was much better than Bush 43...but Bush 41 was better than Clinton. And yes, I'm a progressive saying that.

MMC said:

That what Bush Jr had to deal with.....goes back to Clinton and his policies. Playing catch up after Democratic Control. Repubs one step forward two steps back. Demos one step back, then 3 more....then its fall down and everybody hit the floor.


Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance.....

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq. The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world. "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton. Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained......snip~

CNN - Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998

Click to expand...

Where did Clinton ever threaten invasion?

kjwins said:

For one I hate Bill Clinton more than Bush.

Two, Bush attacked Iraq for oil. Not any threat to the US.

Three, Dick Cheney said years earlier, under GHWB that if we removed Saddam it would destabilize the ME. They knew this & did it anyway.

It was about money, power, & oil. Not some made up threat.

Click to expand...

Well the goal of the Neo Cons.....I thought was to keep Iran surrounded.

Glen Contrarian said:

Where did Clinton ever threaten invasion?

Click to expand...

He didn't.....how many Demos voted to go into Iraq, was that again?

MMC said:

That what Bush Jr had to deal with.....goes back to Clinton and his policies. Playing catch up after Democratic Control. Repubs one step forward two steps back. Demos one step back, then 3 more....then its fall down and everybody hit the floor.


Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance.....

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq. The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world. "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton. Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained......snip~

CNN - Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998

Click to expand...

Goes back much farther- Could start with replacing the Iranian PM in 53.
Then replaced with the Shah.
Or even further back with the way the ME was divided up after WW1.
But the OP is launching a military strike.

Let the sanctions stay if the deal fails and increase them.

MMC said:

He didn't.....how many Demos voted to go into Iraq, was that again?

Click to expand...

And where did those Dems who voted for the war get their intel on Iraq from?

MMC said:

He didn't.....how many Demos voted to go into Iraq, was that again?

Click to expand...

Remember, even Colin Powell was lied to:

Ex-secretary of state Colin Powell called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain how he was given unreliable information which proved key to the US case for invading Iraq, the Guardian reported Wednesday.

Powell’s landmark speech to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, cited intelligence about Iraq leader Saddam Hussein’s bioweapons programme gained from a defector, codenamed Curveball.

But he has now admitted that he lied to topple the dictator, in an interview with the Guardian.

“It has been known for several years that the source called Curveball was totally unreliable,” Powell told the British newspaper.

“The question should be put to the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) as to why this wasn’t known before the false information was put into the (report) sent to Congress, the president’s state of the union address and my 5 February presentation to the UN.”

JANFU said:

Goes back much farther- Could start with replacing the Iranian PM in 53.
Then replaced with the Shah.
Or even further back with the way the ME was divided up after WW1.
But the OP is launching a military strike.

Let the sanctions stay if the deal fails and increase them.

Click to expand...

Looks like Iran is putting the ball back into BO's Court, again. Not only let the sanctions stay....but put back on those they took off. Iran had two of their people captured in Yemen advising the Zaydi Shia there. Caught in the act so to speak.


The Iranians, meanwhile, are practically daring Obama to abandon his dangerous, ill-conceived legacy project. Perhaps in order to solidify support among domestic hardliners, and coupled with a confidence that the White House will never walk away, the regime is insisting that "research and development" concessions extracted from the West will permit them to start spinning advanced nuclear centrifuges on day one of any finalized accord:

Iran will begin using its latest generation IR-8 centrifuges as soon as its nuclear deal with the world powers goes into effect, Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear chief told members of parliament on Tuesday, according to Iran’s semi-official FARS news agency. If accurate, the report appears to make a mockery of the world powers’ much-hailed framework agreement with Iran, since such a move clearly breaches the US-published terms of the deal, and would dramatically accelerate Iran’s potential progress to the bomb. Iran has said that its IR-8 centrifuges enrich uranium 20 times faster than the IR-1 centrifuges it currently uses.....snip~

Unraveling: Iran Blasts US 'Fact Sheet,' Takes Hard Line on Sanctions Relief, Inspections - Guy Benson

MMC said:

Well the goal of the Neo Cons.....I thought was to keep Iran surrounded.

Click to expand...

Look up the permanent war time economy. This **** goes back to WW2. US sanctions & depleted uranium, from the first war killed close to a million innocence people in Iraq. Women & children, not just soldiers.

Neo-Cons can be Dem's or Rep's. It depends on who is in the oil & arms dealers pockets. Hillary is one of them IMO

MMC said:

Looks like Iran is putting the ball back into BO's Court, again. Not only let the sanctions stay....but put back on those they took off. Iran had two of their people captured in Yemen advising the Zaydi Shia there. Caught in the act so to speak.


The Iranians, meanwhile, are practically daring Obama to abandon his dangerous, ill-conceived legacy project. Perhaps in order to solidify support among domestic hardliners, and coupled with a confidence that the White House will never walk away, the regime is insisting that "research and development" concessions extracted from the West will permit them to start spinning advanced nuclear centrifuges on day one of any finalized accord:

Iran will begin using its latest generation IR-8 centrifuges as soon as its nuclear deal with the world powers goes into effect, Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear chief told members of parliament on Tuesday, according to Iran’s semi-official FARS news agency. If accurate, the report appears to make a mockery of the world powers’ much-hailed framework agreement with Iran, since such a move clearly breaches the US-published terms of the deal, and would dramatically accelerate Iran’s potential progress to the bomb. Iran has said that its IR-8 centrifuges enrich uranium 20 times faster than the IR-1 centrifuges it currently uses.....snip~

Unraveling: Iran Blasts US 'Fact Sheet,' Takes Hard Line on Sanctions Relief, Inspections - Guy Benson

Click to expand...

I did see this,,think they were Quds Force officers -but they were separate captures in Aden..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is the point of this deal? Is it to retard Iranian nuke weapons,or is it an Obama legacy,
or is it some delusion about getting Iran to play nice with it's neighbors?

If those centrifuges can spin out enriched uranium, "20x faster" on day 1 or whatever, then this whole thing is a FARS farce
(sorry about that "FARS farce"..lol I had to go there! )

pbrauer said:

Iran is Shia, Baghdad was Sunni when Saddam was in power, its mostly Shia now.
President Reagan supported Saddam because he was the enemy of the enemy. Presdent Bush's invasion of iraq screwed that whole relationship and empowered Iran beef up their nuke program.

How does Iran relate to 911?
How does the bombing of the Cole relate to either Iraq or Iran and not OBL?
What was the reason for destabling the ME by invading Iraq?
BTW, how did those hostages get home?

Click to expand...

It seems you have a "reading comprehension problem" now.

Shia, Sunni?

What the **** is that even about?

My point was specific to a post that made th absolutely absurd statement that "all US problems in the middle east began with George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq.

I am simply pointing out the US has always had problems in the middle east and the lame misfits who can't read at all need to stop blaming George Bush for everything from Obama's problems with Canada to ice storms in the winter.



I suppose soon you all will be saying the US never had a problem anywhere before George W. Bush as that appears to be one sick obsession

Fearandloathing said:

I agree I erred in "right" as I meant "left" but that's irrelevant to my point about authenticity. If you have some information on any mis-dealings on the part of the WP where they have misled, please indicate them, sneering at an award wining newspaper as "lefty" doesn't go anywhere.

As I took pains to point ouot and what you ignored and who is being quoted. NGO's that appear to have no dog in the hunt re Washington's politics and repeat your reference does NOT even deal with civilian deaths.

And I again raise the issue of who's been right and who's been wrong. The Pentagon or Doctor's Without Borders.

You have convinced me only that you are extremely biased

Click to expand...

Let me give the Washington Compost some more of the derision is so richly deserves. Like almost every big-city newspaper in the U.S. these days, including the once-prestigious New York Times and my own once-well-regarded Los Angeles Times, it is a lefty piece of fish wrap.

I don't know what the Pentagon has to do with anything I wrote, or what basis you have for claiming my reference "does NOT even deal with civilian deaths. The site I linked to has nothing to do with the Pentagon, and it gives estimates of civilian deaths in its charts. It says the following, right on the page I linked to:

"The data is obtained from press reports from the Pakistani press (Daily Times, Dawn, Geo News, The News, and other outlets), as well as wire reports (AFP, Reuters, etc.), as well as reporting from The Long War Journal. Given the Taliban’s control of the areas where strikes occur, and a dearth of reporters in those areas, the exact numbers for casualties are difficult to know. The numbers below are estimates based on press reporting."

Maybe Pakistani newspapers are also biased in favor of the U.S. government.

Glen Contrarian said:

Remember, even Colin Powell was lied to:

Ex-secretary of state Colin Powell called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain how he was given unreliable information which proved key to the US case for invading Iraq, the Guardian reported Wednesday.

Powell’s landmark speech to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, cited intelligence about Iraq leader Saddam Hussein’s bioweapons programme gained from a defector, codenamed Curveball.

But he has now admitted that he lied to topple the dictator, in an interview with the Guardian.

“It has been known for several years that the source called Curveball was totally unreliable,” Powell told the British newspaper.

“The question should be put to the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) as to why this wasn’t known before the false information was put into the (report) sent to Congress, the president’s state of the union address and my 5 February presentation to the UN.”

Click to expand...

Do you Bush haters ever let go of anything?

OK everything is Bush's fault.

No what has Obama done to fix that?

Bush had wars in two countries, Obama the great has wars in seven and is losing, we are now watching children being butchered, pilots being burned alive, women beheaded...

It's better under him?

Based on Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq now, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, and general mayhem, I would take Bush' invasion - which i opposed over everything this sorry dolt has screwed up so far.

And, in closing, I was unaware that Bush allowed Russia to steal part of Eastern Europe, did not say "If you like your plan..." and did not break every promise made.

So, I want to thank you for this opportunity to point out once again how the lame and nearly illiterate George Bush was superior to Obama in every way and we haven't even mentioned "amnesty" closing Gitmo, "spontaneous demonstrations" or golf scores

Obama, Bush. same guy different party. More than enough blame to go around. Lets just not turn Bush into a hero. As the right has done with Reagan.

Thing is these guys are just tools for the corporate state. That's were the power is. Only the American people can fix this. But it won't be by fighting over who is worse.

Fearandloathing said:

It seems you have a "reading comprehension problem" now.

Shia, Sunni?

What the **** is that even about?

My point was specific to a post that made th absolutely absurd statement that "all US problems in the middle east began with George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq.

I am simply pointing out the US has always had problems in the middle east and the lame misfits who can't read at all need to stop blaming George Bush for everything from Obama's problems with Canada to ice storms in the winter.



I suppose soon you all will be saying the US never had a problem anywhere before George W. Bush as that appears to be one sick obsession

Click to expand...

You just lied, I never said all of the problems were due to President Bush invading Iraq. In fact you quoted me as they were the exact words i wrote. Not even close dude.

And if you don't know how the Sunni and Shia sects fit in the story, there no sense speaking to you.

Amadeus said:

Obama started those wars? When?

Click to expand...

Wars require money and weapons. We give them all money, weapons, and training.

Fearandloathing said:

Do you Bush haters ever let go of anything?

OK everything is Bush's fault.

No what has Obama done to fix that?

Click to expand...

You mean, like getting us completely out of Iraq, Almost completely out of Afghanistan, taking us from losing 800K jobs per month to a record fifty-plus (and counting) consecutive months of private-sector job growth, growing the government at a slower pace than any president since Eisenhower, having the federal tax burden on individuals lower than at any time since Truman, having the Dow hit record territory fifty-odd times last year (after it was below 7000 two months after he took office), and now even the S&P and Nasdaq are near record territory...yeah, Obama's really tried to destroy America, huh?

Bush had wars in two countries, Obama the great has wars in seven and is losing, we are now watching children being butchered, pilots being burned alive, women beheaded...

Click to expand...

Really? How, exactly, are you arriving at SEVEN wars? Are you counting Libya, wherein we had ZERO boots on the ground? Are you counting Syria, where we also have ZERO boots on the ground? Are you STILL counting Iraq and Afghanistan as if you think that Obama should have been able to just wave his magical pen and make those two wars end the day he took office? Really, guy, why the heck do you think that Bush Sr. said that NO, we shouldn't go to Baghdad because there was no viable EXIT strategy????

It's better under him?

Click to expand...

FAR better, yes!

Based on Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq now, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, and general mayhem, I would take Bush' invasion - which i opposed over everything this sorry dolt has screwed up so far.

Click to expand...

So...now you're counting Iran as a war? And as far as Yemen and Pakistan go, how many troops have we lost in those places? Are we spending TWELVE BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH specifically on war and occupation? How many soldiers are we losing every freaking month as compared to under Bush Jr.?

In other words, guy, I suggest you go find a dictionary, look up the word "objectivity", and learn to abide by it.

And, in closing, I was unaware that Bush allowed Russia to steal part of Eastern Europe,

Click to expand...

Um, as I recall, Bush allowed Russia to come in and effectively annex Georgia and did NOTHING about it. And gee, when Putin was able to do that without any real action from the West, did that give him the idea that he could do so with the Crimea? Yep! And perhaps you should not forget that preventing all-out war - which could result in a general thermonuclear exchange resulting in the effectively complete destruction of America (and Russia, and most of the rest of the free world) is infinitely more important than sending in the U.S. Army to try to take back the Crimea or to support the Ukraine.

did not say "If you like your plan..."

Click to expand...

If you want to lay blame, the blame, sir, belongs with the insurance companies that - AFTER Obamacare was passed - STILL continued to sell policies that they knew damn well wouldn't meet Obamacare standards. These, sir, were the plans that had to be changed.

and did not break every promise made.

Click to expand...

Funny! Of course, Politifact says he broke 22% of his promises. Oh, that's right - I forgot! Politifact is biased...probably because reality has a liberal bias....

So, I want to thank you for this opportunity to point out once again how the lame and nearly illiterate George Bush was superior to Obama in every way and we haven't even mentioned "amnesty" closing Gitmo, "spontaneous demonstrations" or golf scores

Click to expand...

And I want to thank you for showing all and sundry how the Right has lost all semblance of objectivity, that reality means far less to them than does taking every possible opportunity to tear down Obama.