For a double-naught spy, you sure don't pay much attention. Where were you in December when I said: ------------ 12/15/2005 ----------- There is indeed a large movement for democracy in Iran and the best play that we can do right now is to leave it alone and let it grow. A military invasion would only unite Iranians against us when we need them divided. We cannot convert the Middle East to democracy by conquest. Democracy has to come from within by people who are motivated to get it. A good scenario is that the new Iranian radical President may provoke a backlash internally and allow the moderate opposition back into power. We do not need Iraq as a staging area to dominate Iran with air and seapower. We have many bases in the region. The bad scenario is Iran developing a nuclear weapon and using it against Israel or an American base in the Middle East. That would be national suicide for Iran and they know it. Mostly I think they are posturing to be a major regional power and they need nuclear weapons to deter Israel, Pakistan, and India--all nuclear armed. We have no pressing need to invade Iran and we can attack them with ease from the airbases we already possess. We cannot isolate Iran geopolitically without the cooperation from the Russians . . . which has been erratic. The Russians desire a warm-water naval base, problems for the US, and a foothold in the Persian Gulf. They will be in bed with the Iranians if we don't make them an offer they can't refuse. Ultimately we have more money than the Iranians and the Russians need it badly. This is one of the major problems with the Iraq war. It has sapped our military strength and our political will to make war. The citizens do not trust this president to make proper war decisions. This has emboldened North Korea and Iraq who are now making overt nuclear threats that would not likely have done before the Iraq debacle. They know that the US is not ready for another ground war anytime soon. True, Israel won't take any chit from anybody, but they do not have the resources to take on all their enemies without direct military help from the US. We will support them with arms and money, but we will not go and fight for them. Israel has always been careful not to reach beyond their capabilities nor to anger the US by throwing gasoline on the fire. They may strike the Iranians, but not with nuclear weapons or they will lose us. Long-time Iran watchers also point out that Iranian rhetoric is aimed at the largely illiterate masses and may not be true policy objectives. Politics work differently in the Middle East than they do in the West. Talk of annihilation of Israel does not equate into serious plans to do so. Teddy Roosevelt's foreign policy was "Speak softly and carry a big stick". In the Middle East the policy is often "Agitate loudly and maybe no one will recognize that we have no stick". (see Saddam Hussein)[/quote]
Or two weeks ago when I said: ------------------- 2/12/2006 -------------- I don't expect you to agree with me all the time LC, but if you think I haven't been posting my ideas at length around here, you haven't been paying attention. I back up my position with facts and sources better than anyone on the forum. I have stated clearly that I think Iran must be prepared for . . . I never said we needed to launch an war against them. That is exactly the wrong thing to do, as I point out above. We need to engineer internal collapse against Iran as we did with the Soviet Union and the Taliban.
So basically, you are saying Iran is one of the greatest threats there is to the US, and we should do nothing...wait it out. We sat back and waited out Al Qaida a few years back, with no more actions than bribes to the Taliban to provide information on Bin Laden. I'd hardly consider that a success. In what has become your typical fashion, you point out the various dangers, pitfalls, and problems of a situation, yet you can offer no means for a solution, other than do nothing and see where it goes. In the meantime, Iran grows closer and closer to nuclear capability. Your faith in the rumblings of freedom you hear from a society of lunatics is either very admirable or very naive. Lost in your argument is the fact that by merely being in Iraq, we are in a stronger position and able to exert more pressure on the Iranian government and "play them like a harp" . Speaking softly and carrying a big stick is fine, but sooner or later someone is going to call your bluff. When that happens, you better be in a position to use that "stick". When your opponent knows you are in a position to use the "stick", you have a far greater advantage.
Defeatism is not pacifism. I don't like going to war either. Who does? But sometimes there are greater evils that war.
Dems want this to be another vietnam. They want the US to fail, so they can win. Kiss my a** you F***** Dems.:grin:
I just offered my ideas. Engineering the internal collapse of a country is far from doing nothing. Iraq and Vietnam should teach you that invasion and occupation is not always the best solution. Exactly my point. Before our weaknesses were exposed in the foolish occupation of Iraq, our enemies remembered how effective our use of the military was in Kuwait and in Kosovo. Now they can see the limits of our power. Furthermore they can see we are overcommitted in Iraq right now and unprepared for another military conflict. Both Iran and Korea have been emboldened by this. I advocate getting into strong geographic, economic, military, and political position to deal with enemies like North Korea and Iran and probably also Pakistan in the near future. Getting rid of the millstone of Iraq will strengthen us militarily economically, and politically, . . . not weaken us. Sorry. You guys tag team me with similar arguments and I sometimes transpose you mentally. :grin:
A childish notion. Nobody wanted another Vietnam. Everybody thought the Gulf War had laid those old failed military policies to rest, but Dubya brought them back. Opposition to this war is bi-partisan, homer. You only have to look. Or better yet, read the polls: CBS News:Bush Ratings At All-Time Low Mr. Bush's overall job rating has fallen to 34 percent, down from 42 percent last month. Fifty-nine percent disapprove of the job the president is doing. For the first time in this poll, most Americans say the president does not care much about people like themselves. Fifty-one percent now think he doesn't care, compared to 47 percent last fall. Just 30 percent approve of how Mr. Bush is handling the Iraq war, another all-time low. By two to one, the poll finds Americans think U.S. efforts to bring stability to Iraq are going badly – the worst assessment yet of progress in Iraq. Even on fighting terrorism, which has long been a strong suit for Mr. Bush, his ratings dropped lower than ever. Half of Americans say they disapprove of how he's handling the war on terror, while 43 percent approve. In a bright spot for the administration, most Americans appeared to have heard enough about Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident. More then three in four said it was understandable that the accident had occurred and two-thirds said the media had spent too much time covering the story. Still, the incident appears to have made the public's already negative view of Cheney a more so. Just 18 percent said they had a favorable view of the vice president, down from 23 percent in January.
