Invade Iran Now

[Osborne Russell]

1. Spread democracy.
2. Has WMD's and history of using them.
3. Supports terrorism.
4. Haven for terrorists.
5. Dedicated to destruction of Israel and other close allies.
6. Ragheads.
7. Elections tie-in.
8. Improves image of high-level government and industry officials in the eyes of the common man.
9. Requires strengthened military.
10. Demonstrates prestige and effectiveness of strengthened military.
11. Supports the troops.
12. Leaves skeptics gasping to formulate alternative (once brave boys and girls are in harm's way)
13. Improves status of neo-conservatism vs. traditional norms of international law and relations (e.g. "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists.")
14. Lets foreigners know who's calling the shots, until further notice.
15. Easily and reliably financed by tax cuts and end of artificial restraints on a major portion of the oil supply.
16. Nation's best and brightest are drawn to military service while those with other priorities are stuck in politics and commerce.

There's sixteen big ones, tough guys. I can't believe you stalwarts aren't lining up to enlist, or at least write to your President to demand action. Hey wait a minute -- is that the deal? Even if it looks good, it's not good unless he does it? That would be a corollary of, even if it looks bad, it's not bad if he does it.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

17. The Army's right next door anyhow
18. Donny Rumsfeld needs a distraction
19. People will greet you in the streets with flowers
20. America will be safer
21. Iran will be a model for the middle east.

[Victor]

You guys are getting ahead of yourselves. Wait til a few months before election day. Perhaps another terrorist incident is scheduled for, let's say, Labor Day Weekend 2008. The present rhetoric is just their way of testing the waters. Looks like everyone's too busy making money to care what's become of America.

[Meerkat]

Looks like everyone's too busy making money to care what's become of America.
Something has changed since 1776? :eek:

[Wild Wassa]

22. The US Administration are backing themselves into a corner with their tough talking about Iran ... they will have to go or lose face with the rest of the world.

Go sooner than later GW otherwise it could be KABOOM!... if you listen to the paranoids.

Warren.

[Nick Scheuer]

Where would Bush ever get the Troops?

The reserves couldn't begin to field a couple of million Troops.

And Bush is way too pig-headed to reverse his aversion on a Draft, which would seriously involve the grandsons and grandughters of his slease-ball Cabinet.

But the delusional Shrub just may try it anyway, thereby bankrupting the US and reducing it to a colony of China. Texas may even wind up under the Mexican flag again.

Hey, it's happened to others; lots of times.

But we would deserve it. After all, almost half of us voted for this Bad Joke.

Moby Nick

[Gary E]

Britain took part in mock Iran invasion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1754307,00.html

Pentagon planned for Tehran conflict with war game involving UK troops

Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill
Saturday April 15, 2006
The Guardian

British officers took part in a US war game aimed at preparing for a possible invasion of Iran, despite repeated claims by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, that a military strike against Iran is inconceivable.

The war game, codenamed Hotspur 2004, took place at the US base of Fort Belvoir in Virginia in July 2004.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman played down its significance yesterday. "These paper-based exercises are designed to test officers to the limit in fictitious scenarios. We use invented countries and situations using real maps," he said.

Article continues
The disclosure of Britain's participation came in the week in which the Iranian crisis intensified, with a US report that the White House was contemplating a tactical nuclear strike and Tehran defying the United Nations security council.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who sparked outrage in the US, Europe and Israel last year by calling for Israel to be wiped off the face of the Earth, created more alarm yesterday. He told a conference in Tehran in support of the Palestinians: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

The senior British officers took part in the Iranian war game just over a year after the invasion of Iraq. It was focused on the Caspian Sea, with an invasion date of 2015. Although the planners said the game was based on a fictitious Middle East country called Korona, the border corresponded exactly with Iran's and the characteristics of the enemy were Iranian.

A British medium-weight brigade operated as part of a US-led force.

The MoD's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which helped run the war game, described it on its website as the "year's main analytical event of the UK-US Future Land Operations Interoperability Study" aimed at ensuring that both armies work well together. The study "was extremely well received on both sides of the Atlantic".

According to an MoD source, war games covering a variety of scenarios are conducted regularly by senior British officers in the UK, the US or at Nato headquarters. He cited senior military staff carrying out a mock invasion of southern England last week and one of Scotland in January.

However, Hotspur took place at a time of accelerated US planning after the fall of Baghdad for a possible conflict with Iran. That planning is being carried out by US Central Command, responsible for the Middle East and central Asia area of operations, and by Strategic Command, which carries out long-range bombing and nuclear operations.

William Arkin, a former army intelligence officer who first reported on the contingency planning for a possible nuclear strike against Iran in his military column for the Washington Post online, said: "The United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking."

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The foreign secretary has made his position very clear that military action is inconceivable. The Foreign Office regards speculation about war, particularly involving Britain, as unhelpful at a time when the diplomatic route is still being pursued."

After the failure of a mission to Tehran on Thursday by Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Russia announced a diplomatic initiative yesterday. It is to host a new round of talks in Moscow on Tuesday with the US, the EU and China.

[geeman]

The US is constantly planning ""what if" scenarios,,has been for decades,,theres no new news there, except if the country happens to be one that we're having a ""problem " with I think thats where the news is.The idea is to have a plan in place ,,ready to go IF its needed.Does it actually work? and is effective? I have no idea,but theres no new news there.

[Victor]

Well sure it is, but the fact it's being openly discussed is what's eerie. It's as if they're seeing if they can get away with it. So far, looks ilke yes. Really hard to believe, after Iraq. Is anybody paying attention?

I'm rather enjoying this newfound paranoia - ain't it fun? In a way, it makes me feel closer to my long-deceased father, cause he was raving about this kinda stuff back in the sixties, and I always thought it was delusional. Now it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that Osama was a member of the Bilderbergers, or that group of world leaders that meets out in California every year to "do Boy Scout stuff." Yeah, right. Or if not Osama, certainly one or more members of his family. If there's another terrorist attack, I'll assume it's either a Reichstag fire or at least a result of their incompetence.

Conservatives were traditionally antisemetic and/or anti-Israel. But neocon policies seem to be serve Israel's interests more than anyone else's. How in the world can invading another Muslim nation ensure oil price stability? Quite the opposite, my dear. Talk about manipulating the market!

[ahp]

Last night I heard from someone who should know that 10,000 US Navy Reservists were to be called for active duty and given two weeks training to convert them into US Army personel. Why?

[Sailor]

ahp
How do you convert Naval Personel into army personel in two weeks? Giving them a new uniform doesn't make them army personel. If I was given 10 000 soldiers and told to make sailors of them in two weeks I'd laugh at the guy. Not possible.

[Bob Cleek]

24. College cheerleader who couldn't make the team (and whose daddy's money got him into Yale to begin with) is going to show everybody who knew him when that he's no wimp!

25. The guys who put the puppet in office aren't going to let him keep them from making billions more off the American people.

Gee... this is starting to sound a lot like the '60's... except that this time around EVERYBODY is against the war!

[paladin]

well...dammitt...I'm 5A, wimmin and kids go before me......next they will recall anyone with prior service......

[Sea Frog]

26. While they're invading Iran, they aren't attacking Québec.

[Osborne Russell]

25. The guys who put the puppet in office aren't going to let him keep them from making billions more off the American people.

Man, that's scary. Sooner or later the puppet will reach the end of his service life, and then we will have a new puppet, and the old puppet, who people insisted wasn't a puppet, will be hung in the puppet hall of fame, and people will insist that the new puppet isn't a puppet, and that they aren't being duped.

Reagan was used to funnel missiles to Iran and arms to the Contras, contrary not only to law, though I realize, come on, who cares about that when it concerns the Great Unitary Executive Leader of America, but also contrary to his own policies!! How? Because he didn't know what was going on. Because knowing what is going on isn't the President's job; a puppet makes a Great Communicator when he has nothing of his own to communicate. It would only get in the way.

If Iraq has caused the current puppet to have any *thoughts* about military or political strategy, let alone any *doubts* about same, the answer is simple, time for a new puppet, for sure.

[George.]

Ray-gun at least had an excuse. He had Alzheimer's.

Bush is just plain too stupid too realize what his puppetmasters are using him for.

And the rest of us are screwed, because his puppetmasters have nukes, and hisself has the support of the dumb half of America plus one...

[Victor]

Interesting point Osborne. I tend to think they got their start while he was President, but not that they put him in office, like they did with this clown. The really amazing thing is the deafening silence from the body politic.

[Meerkat]

ahp
How do you convert Naval Personel into army personel in two weeks? Giving them a new uniform doesn't make them army personel. If I was given 10 000 soldiers and told to make sailors of them in two weeks I'd laugh at the guy. Not possible. You can convert sailors to soldiers far more readily than you can the reverse. Ignorance on a ship can kill you and everybody else too easily. OTOH, how long does it take to learn how to clean a gun and aim it in the right general direction?

[ahp]

I don't know how one turns a sailor into a soldier in two weeks. Perhaps you can't, but since when has reality limited this administration? Remember, they creat their own reality. You and I are victims of "Old Think".

Perhaps the next act of desperation will be to offer the illegal aliens amnisty and citizenship in return for several years of active duty.

After that isn't enough, hire mercenaries, which I guess we are already doing in a small way.

We should read about Romulus Augustillus for a history lesson.

[John of Phoenix]

I don't know how one turns a sailor into a soldier in two weeks.

You can do it two seconds - just give him a rifle.

Beware the ides of May.

[Sailor]

Ignorance anywhere can kill you, shipboard and in the field. And there is such a thing as fire control. You don't fire in the "General Direction" you shoot to kill. Every shot tells. Why have a section of 8 guys shoot their weapons on full auto expending 3 magazines each (30 rounds per mag) at a guy running towards them? That's one of the differences with the US forces and most of the rest of the world. Our guys would stop, take aim, shoot one round maybe two and drop the guy. The Brits take new recruits, give them all the ammo they want and let them have at 'er. They very quickly tire of not hitting the target, then listen to the instructor and use fire control. There's no control of the weapon when it's on Auto. It's not heavy enough to be used as a machine gun. It's a rifle not a machine gun. In our forces they don't let us have at er but we're not allowed to expend ammo uselessly.
Basic training in our forces is about 12 weeks. That's before any trade training. There's about 12 months of training from raw recruit to a deployable soldier in our forces. That does not include training for the mission, that's just training to be a qualified soldier. My Training took about 2 years of time but as you said Navy training is more specialized. I still don't see them becoming competent soldiers in 2 weeks. If that's the case I am no longer surprised at the number of poor young American kids coming home in boxes.
ahp, Funny you mention giving citizenship in exchange for service. In an ethics class we discused it. Like a lot of forces we are having retention problems up here in Canada. Kids put in their 3 years and then leave. One thing one of our group discusions came up with would be to give credit to imigrants towards citizenship if they served. No change in standards as far as physical, language or education, just an additional incentive to serve if they want citizenship. There are tons of highly trained foreigners that have PHDs and Masters degrees in all sorts of useful things that are stuck driving cabs and working at 7-11 because we don't recognize their qualifications. Too bad really. This would allow the military access to their skills and give them something they value in exchange for service. Nothng wrong with that from my perspective.

[Sailor]

ahp
Are you right next to Jekyll island? I seem to remember a St. Simon Island next to Jekyll island on a vacation as a kid.

[huisjen]

well...dammitt...I'm 5A, wimmin and kids go before me......next they will recall anyone with prior service......

A recurring nightmare goes just like that. I hope my 23 reasons for resigning my commission pissed off enough people. Sometimes I wish I'd left in the one that went, "We Black Shoes don't ask the Brown Shoes if we can fly their airplanes. They shouldn't ask to drive our ships." That might have made me more secure as a civilian. But then my ship had a Brown Shoe Captain at the time...

Dan

[skuthorp]

Well, if he does I'm sure our lickspittle PM will volunteer the 5 or10 personell left that are qualified for the job. Then again, he's been acting like he's the pres. for a while, maybe he'll change the rules and send our weekend warriors.

[Meerkat]

I'm surprised they haven't tried to recall Col. Smalser.

[geeman]

As the Aussies say,,we have ""no worries" as long as we have Capt kangeroo at the helm,,,,,,,,

[PeterSibley]

Posted by Sailor,
"Like a lot of forces we are having retention problems up here in Canada. Kids put in their 3 years and then leave. One thing one of our group discusions came up with would be to give credit to imigrants towards citizenship if they served. No change in standards as far as physical, language or education, just an additional incentive to serve if they want citizenship. There are tons of highly trained foreigners that have PHDs and Masters degrees in all sorts of useful things that are stuck driving cabs and working at 7-11 because we don't recognize their qualifications. Too bad really. This would allow the military access to their skills and give them something they value in exchange for service. Nothng wrong with that from my perspective."

It makes me wonder,in this newly globalised world ,how long before the rich start forming totally mercenary armies ? Just pay, good pay but NO citizenship carrots.There would be plenty of takers, this world is awash in young men living on a pitance.The rich populations need'nt be concerned about casualties,I mean its not their kids dying !

[LeeG]

27. they've got aluminum tubes and will use them

28. Our president is crazier than their president.

[michigangeorge]

26. While they're invading Iran, they aren't attacking Québec.
Now Quebec- thats an alternative we should be looking at! Close to home, great cities, valuable timberland and waterfront just waiting for condo developments. Bet they have some oil, gold or copper hidden up there too. After our occupation forces are in place we only need to get'em talking proper American english and it's a done deal.

[ahp]

Don't forget about western Canada. They have all that fresh water that they just let run into the ocean. What a waste, when our west is so dry.

If you think this is off the wall, a major US civil engineering firm did a study on how to use all that Canadian water.

[LeeG]

is that fresh water anywhere near the oil sands? We need the water to process the shale/sands,,it's gonna take a LOT

[Osborne Russell]

The really amazing thing is the deafening silence from the body politic.

Even Henry Kissinger says things have changed, and things now stack up much more in favor of pre-emptive war. That being so, and Iran presenting a much stronger case than Saddam could ever have hoped to --- WHY OH WHY are the reds not loudly insisting on the invasion of Iran? Why don't all of their justifications, analysis and propaganda apply with even greater force in the case of Iran? Which, you will recall, was brought up as a reason not to invade Iraq.

How can any honest person not conclude that the only possible explanation is that the United States was mistaken, at best, or lying, at worst, when it made its case for invading Iraq? If we don't invade Iran the conclusion is inescapable.

Seems the public is losing its enthusiasm for war. Great fun watching videos from smart bombs during "shock and awe"; another thing three years later watching IED's go off every day, and the country America ripped apart unable to hold itself together without American troops on every important street corner, waiting . . . for Shias and Sunnis and Kurds to forget the present and the past, and dedicate themselves to universal human rights, including freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, which they don't have in Pakistan, let alone Afghanistan . . . that's a long time to wait. Which, you will recall, was brought up as a reason not to invade Iraq. But brushed aside. Why have the reds ceased beating their chests?

[Gonzalo]

Originally posted by Osborne Russell


WHY OH WHY are the reds not loudly insisting on the invasion of Iran? Why don't all of their justifications, analysis and propaganda apply with even greater force in the case of Iran?

Anybody notice that Iran is almost 4 times the size of Iraq and more than 3 times the population? Their military is certainly not world class, but it hasn't been destroyed by a disasterous war and a decade of sanctions as Saddam's was. And the US military (except for those 10,000 naval reservists) is tied up elsewhere.

[Ross M]

So, Osborne with two l's - just how many resolutions has the U.N. Security Council found Iran to be in violation of?

Ross

[George Roberts]

As I heard the story ---

Nukes are going to be used to hit the buried production plants or what ever.

I like the idea. Perhaps nukes where the people are would be more productive, but it is a start.

[John of Phoenix]

IRAN has formed battalions of suicide bombers to strike at British and American targets if the nation’s nuclear sites are attacked. According to Iranian officials, 40,000 trained suicide bombers are ready for action.

The main force, named the Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards, was first seen last month when members marched in a military parade, dressed in olive-green uniforms with explosive packs around their waists and detonators held high.

More here> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2136638,00.html

[Wild Wassa]

"As the Aussies say,,we have ""no worries" as long as we have Capt kangeroo at the helm." Said the Geeman.

That is not what Aussies say Geeman. Australians are more upfront than that. This is what Australian soldiers actually do say.

"What is the most dangerous thing about going to war ... being deployed anywhere near Americans."

Take that how ever you like.

Warren.

[Nicholas Carey]

Captain Kangaroo was the longest running (US) network show for children of all time, although Sesame Stree has recently eclipsed it.

Captain Kangaroo ran from 1955 straight through to 1984 with Bob Keeshan (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0444828/) at the helm as the good Captain. Oddly, it was set on a farm, with Hugh Brannum (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0105186/) playing his sidekick Mr. Green Jeans.

http://timstvshowcase.com/kangaroo.jpg


More obviously via google (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22captain+kangaroo%22) and Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Kangaroo)


It was a great show.

[huisjen]

And everyone was really shocked to find out that The Captain and Mr. Green Jeans were lovers.

Dan

[Meerkat]

As I heard the story ---

Nukes are going to be used to hit the buried production plants or what ever.

I like the idea. Perhaps nukes where the people are would be more productive, but it is a start.
Heh - I'll bet you call yourself a Christian too. :rolleyes:

[huisjen]

Captain Kangaroo was the longest running (US) network show for children of all time, although Sesame Stree has recently eclipsed it.

But then there's Doctor Who.

Dan

Edit: Of course this thread is really about nuking Iran....

[LeeG]

couldn't we nuke the moon instead? There must be some reason we could come up with,,geology,,something.

[huisjen]

Yeah. As a warning to...

Well, to somebody.

And it'd look cool.

Who'd we name the crater after?

Dan

[Sailor]

Name it after Gearge Dubya. He doesn't deserve much more than having an empty crater named after him

[huisjen]

Only if we can get him and his hat to do a Slim Pickins.

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9903/08/kubrick.obit/strangelove.jpg

Dan

[LeeG]

Yeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaa

[Osborne Russell]

Anybody notice that Iran is almost 4 times the size of Iraq and more than 3 times the population? Their military is certainly not world class, but it hasn't been destroyed by a disasterous war and a decade of sanctions as Saddam's was. And the US military (except for those 10,000 naval reservists) is tied up elsewhere.

Who needs troops? Whatever the generals say, we could defeat Iran with one quarter that number, with our modern technology, strategy, and tactics. The Secretary of Defense has assured us of this time and again.

Do you mean we don't have enough troops for an effective occupation? To keep terrorists from streaming in? Fewer Farsi speakers than Arabic speakers? No idea of the effect on the regional balance of power? No support in the international community and precious little even from our closest strategic allies? No clear idea of what to do after knocking over their government? Why do you hate George Bush so much as to wish him to fail rather than see America win? Why don't you support the troops? Why don't you believe that captured oil and tax cuts would pay for it all and leave a little something over? Do you want the terrorists to win? Are you with us or on the side of the terrorists?

You mean we won't spread democracy if the bad guys fight back? Wouldn't that mean we have to lay off Iraq as well as Iran? Wouldn't that mean that America has lost another war? Quit? Given up? Turned tail and run? Beaten? Defeated? All our young people killed and maimed in vain? Their families' grief and sacrifice for nothing? Because the US can't beat Iran?

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

[Paul G.]

Do I feel a song coming on? http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/teamamericaworldpolice/americafuckyeah.htm

[BrianW]

Too funny! The conservatives have not called for an invasion of Iran, so now liberals need to resort to starting threads like this one.

Gotta feed the fire, I understand. :)

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Thanks for chiming in, Jager. But where are your compatriots? Bush is being knocked around like a pinata and the Royal Guard is nowhere in sight.
Just think. Only 2½ more years of this.

Charlie

[Osborne Russell]

So, Osborne with two l's - just how many resolutions has the U.N. Security Council found Iran to be in violation of?

Ross

The U.N. is dominated by foreign accomodationists and corrupt in any case. For what it's worth, they may act on the recommendation of the International Atomic Energy Commission to restrain Iran, but surely you don't expect America to wait upon that. America cannot wait upon the approval of the international community before acting upon the international community. America's fundamental interests must come first.

[Osborne Russell]

Too funny! The conservatives have not called for an invasion of Iran


Why haven't they? I realize The Party has not told them to. Is that it, I mean, is that all there is to it?

Explain, if you're able. Shouldn't be any harder than explaining Iraq. You voted for that, so you should know.

[Rick Clark]

VietNam all over again!! You should have seen it coming when you went to the polls and voted him in. Now you get to pay for it with your money and you dead sons an daughters.

[huisjen]

I thought Jehovah's Witlesses stayed out of politics.

Dan

[George Roberts]

Meerkat ---

I don't think the God Christians worship would want me. I don't particularly want him.

I am just a realist. There are evil people in the world willing to make it a violent place everywhere and forever.

Everyday there are mobs of evil people going out and killing other mobs of people who simply want to be left alone. The "Christians", "jews", and whatever standby and watch.

For the most part the US and some friends have cured polio, small pox, and river blindness. We have even made AIDs managable. Seems a shame to cure people of one disease and let them die from another.

[jake1.11]

Cynic: A faultfinding ill natured critic who beleives that human conduct is motivated wholly by self interest. Remind you of a few people.

[Meerkat]

Meerkat ---

I am just a realist. There are evil people in the world willing to make it a violent place everywhere and forever.

Yes, and you sound like one of them. What would be gained by nuking the general Iranian population who, just like us, are at the mercy of our government's policies and not the instigator of them, by and large?

[Jagermeister]

Thanks for chiming in, Jager.

Hey, dip, that was Brian chiming in. If I decide you're worthy of my opinion, I'll let you know. Until then, try to stay sober enough to at least read the damn names.:rolleyes:

[BrianW]

Why haven't they? I realize The Party has not told them to. Is that it, I mean, is that all there is to it?

Explain, if you're able. Shouldn't be any harder than explaining Iraq. You voted for that, so you should know.

I'm not sure how you deal with your political ideals. But in my world there's no "Party" telling me what to think. I have my opinions an beliefs, and chose the party that comes nearest to meeting those ideals.

Am I to now assume that's how things work in your "Party" Osborne? They send you messages telling you what to think and how to act? So naturally you just thought that's how it's works in the conservative world too?

Of course not, you were just being insulting. What a waste of time...

BrianW

[kharee]

I have always found the Iranians to be a likable people. Should the Iranians predicate their political decisions on the opinions of their friends the Russians,French,Chinese and the American liberal camp, they will suffer a worse fate than Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. Saddam listened to his friends! If America is the enemy the Iranians don't need friends, they need God. The best and last hope for Iran is the Iranian military removing the mullahs and restoring real democracy as opposed to real theocracy. I fully expect President G. WhippAss Bush to nuke them.

[Osborne Russell]

I have my opinions an beliefs, and chose the party that comes nearest to meeting those ideals.

Then share them if you please. Why do you oppose spreading freedom, fighting terrorism, and removing a regime that has weapons of mass destruction, will soon have nuclear weapons, and has already attacked the United States?

[Osborne Russell]

I fully expect President G. WhippAss Bush to nuke them.

A few hundred men like these, with our technology, we'll set the world right.

[Sailor]

The way I see it every super power in history, Egyptians, Romans, pick one from a list as long as my arm, has fallen. (Save the British who let their empire go piecemeal after the 1st and 2nd world wars. The US is the only superpower left. Stands to reason that she's the next to fall. When? is the question. 5 years? 50? 500? 5000? Who knows? Rest assured it WILL happen we just don't know when.

[kharee]

It cannot be denied that great empires political states and even cultures have come and gone. It also cannot be denied the even more have "died aborning", which is the probable fate of the radical Islamists attempt to create a world wide caliphate. The core states of most of the empires of the last few centuries still exist, England,China, Japan, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Germany (Prussia,Austria-Hungary) Turkey(the Ottoman Empire). They have no intention of allowing a hostile empire to arise. The ancillary states, America, Australia, South Africa, Mexico, Nigeria, India, Canada,Brazil, the Asian "Stans", Scandinavia, all have good reasons to oppose a radical Islamic caliphate. Maybe their culture and religion. Maybe a love of money and fine women, wine and song. The doomsdayers among us will just have to learn to live with America the Great and its Coalition of the Willing (and some not so willing but weak kneed) for the forseeable future.

[Meerkat]

Then share them if you please. Why do you oppose spreading freedom, fighting terrorism, and removing a regime that has weapons of mass destruction, will soon have nuclear weapons, and has already attacked the United States?
I had no idea that Saudi Arabia had nukes! :eek: :D

As for "terrorism," it's the political manipulation tool du jour, replacing the ever so useful "Cold War." :p

[BrianW]

Then share them if you please. Why do you oppose spreading freedom, fighting terrorism, and removing a regime that has weapons of mass destruction, will soon have nuclear weapons, and has already attacked the United States?


Troll...

[Meerkat]

Why do you oppose spreading freedom...
I have no opposition to spreading freedom - but only if she's willing! :D

[Jagermeister]

Why do you oppose spreading freedom, fighting terrorism, and removing a regime that has weapons of mass destruction, will soon have nuclear weapons, and has already attacked the United States?

Because spreading freedom, fighting terrorism, and removing a regime that has weapons of mass destruction and has attacked the United States, are all less important than insuring the defeat of George Bush and the demise of the Republican party.

There is no point in exploring the possibility of accomplishing the above goals, because a significant portion of the Congress and the electorate will oppose such endeavors if only because George Bush is doing it. The United States can barely maintain the momentum to beat a decent retreat from Iraq without it becoming a full blown rout with helicopters begin pushed off the carrier decks to make room for retreating personnel. Dealing with Iran is not possible in such an environment.

Isolationist Americans have always held that they have no interest in spreading freedom or fighting terrorism or deterring nuclear aggression. To their numbers have been added those who have no interest in spreading freedom or fighting terrorism or deterring nuclear aggression unless it is done by a Democrat who has no intention of succeeding at the attempt. Together, they form a mass large enough to insure that America will not act unless attacked again, and even then will not act so long as the terrorists take Michael Moore's advice and only attack red state targets.

Even if Iran acts they will probably only use small nuclear weapons, may only attack overseas, and even if they attack the continental United States will most likely attack New York, Washington, or Los Angeles. Why should we worry?

[Osborne Russell]

Troll...

Fancy name for a question you won't answer. Maybe The Party can help you out. Couldn't be much harder than explaining the invasion of Iraq.

[Osborne Russell]

Together, they form a mass large enough to insure that America will not act unless attacked again

Then why was Dubya elected twice?


and even then will not act so long as the terrorists take Michael Moore's advice and only attack red state targets.

I don't get it.

[Osborne Russell]

Dealing with Iran is not possible in such an environment.


That's democracy for you. By your assessment, The Party has failed to win popular support. Maybe because they don't make any sense; maybe because they're incompetent; maybe because they bet on events bailing them out and lost. In any case they lost and there is no greater sin for a Red.

But getting back to the subject, leaving straw men behind, the fact is that the incompetence of the adminstration and their delusional and hypocritical policies have been laid bare by the one-two of the fiasco in Iraq and the emergence of Iran as a nuclear power. Spreading democracy, destroying weapons of mass destruction and fighting terrorism were lies and hypocrisy all along. You can't fool all the people all the time; now that you are found out, you can't find enough people that still believe you to follow you on your fool's errand, and so complain of their lack of faith in you. Whose fault is that?

[TomF]

Because spreading freedom, fighting terrorism, and removing a regime that has weapons of mass destruction and has attacked the United States, are all less important than insuring the defeat of George Bush and the demise of the Republican party.

There is no point in exploring the possibility of accomplishing the above goals, because a significant portion of the Congress and the electorate will oppose such endeavors if only because George Bush is doing it.

...Isolationist Americans have always held that they have no interest in spreading freedom or fighting terrorism or deterring nuclear aggression. To their numbers have been added those who have no interest in spreading freedom or fighting terrorism or deterring nuclear aggression unless it is done by a Democrat who has no intention of succeeding at the attempt. Kevin, these claims are quite astonishing. Bush is certainly being opposed because he’s bollixed up his own program – that’s presumably why polls are showing that some folks who’d voted Republican are now former supporters. Bush’s (mis)management is manufacturing the temporary demise of the Republican party all on its own.

But an obligation to “Spread Freedom?” History buffs might draw parallels between the 19th Century imperial powers’ “White Man’s Burden” to civilize, dispense political institutions, and incidentally to extend trading relationships … and supposed contemporary obligations to “Spread Freedom.” There are some uncomfortable similarities.

I’m not trying to argue for a totally non-interventionist world system, or to deny any state (including the US) the right to defend its national interests. But principles derived from OUR culture and history must be kept in tension with a people’s own rights to national self-determination, and the principles of state sovereignty and autonomy. Even when those peoples choose to exercise such rights differently than we would.

[George Roberts]

Meerkat ---

I accept the blame for my government's policies. It is my fault as much as yours and every other citizen. If you wish to overthrow the US government and build a better one, let me know.

There is a lot of truth in the saying "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

We can destroy all the property we wish to in Iran, but Iranians will still come to kill us or others. (No, they are not all bad. No, not all of them will come.)

We kill the people because they allow their government and each other to behave as they do.

As for me being evil...

Sometime around 1944 a lot of people got together built a couple nukes and dropped them on a lot of strangers.

Over the past century the US stood by and watched millions of people die or be killed. The US still does. I suspect most people are evil.