- Oct 20, 2013
- 55,571
- 17,637
- 2,250
I am certainly no fan of Lindsey Graham (he's a immigrationist), but his ideas about Iran are correct. And he was challenged by a writer in an article in the Atlantic, who attempted to refute Graham, in the article linked at the bottom of this page. I will now refute that author's article. It's necessary to first click the link and read the article (not too long), in order to understand what this OP is talking about.
1. No, the end of the Iraqi war was NOT "a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS" Absolutely not. It was an Iraq with a US won war and Iraq under US control. It was only after the political blunder of pulling troops out in 2011, and creating a vacuum that ISIS moved in. Had the troops stayed there would be no ISIS.
2. Iran’s “capacity to wage a series of terror attacks across the Middle East aimed at us and our friends", is only on the basis of the current security situation. But is war against Iran were to ensue, it wouldn't until US national security, et al, would be strengthened to war levels, which is now not the case. So the author is using a false parameter for judgement.
3. Oh so "you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program" ? Well, what do you know about that ? EARTH TO AUTHOR: like Iran needs a reason to continue their nuclear program. Like they're not going to, NO MATTER WHAT ? Sheeeesh!
4. Here's a good one too. >> "a full assault would require such drawn-out preparations that the Iranian government would know months in advance what was coming." Time for a history lesson. And a question for the author. Do you think the World War II Japanese didn't know months in advance what was coming ? You think Nazi generals thought Roosevelt and Eisenhower were going to sit it out ?
5. Here's another beaut >> "the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has," 2 words answer that. So what ? You mount a full scale invasion of Iran, you fight the Iranians, you defeat them, you take over the country 100%, And you scour every square foot of the country, leaving no stones unturned, with Jack Bauer in charge of interrogations. You destroy everything that resembles nuclear. And you keep there troops there forever. If troop can still be in Germany and Japan 70 years after world War II, they can stay in Iran where they really are needed. And anything less than this, is going to imperil the American people with the risk of nuclear attack (if not annihilation). It simply must be done.
6. Iran would not have a vendetta against the US. Does Germany have one now ? Does Iran ?
Even Vietnam doesn't , and they could justify one. The young Iranian people hate the jihadist lunatics who rule them. Those old rulers will die off, or if need be we could expedite that.
Lindsey Graham on War with Iran and the Lessons of Iraq - The Atlantic
1. No, the end of the Iraqi war was NOT "a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS" Absolutely not. It was an Iraq with a US won war and Iraq under US control. It was only after the political blunder of pulling troops out in 2011, and creating a vacuum that ISIS moved in. Had the troops stayed there would be no ISIS.
2. Iran’s “capacity to wage a series of terror attacks across the Middle East aimed at us and our friends", is only on the basis of the current security situation. But is war against Iran were to ensue, it wouldn't until US national security, et al, would be strengthened to war levels, which is now not the case. So the author is using a false parameter for judgement.
3. Oh so "you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program" ? Well, what do you know about that ? EARTH TO AUTHOR: like Iran needs a reason to continue their nuclear program. Like they're not going to, NO MATTER WHAT ? Sheeeesh!
4. Here's a good one too. >> "a full assault would require such drawn-out preparations that the Iranian government would know months in advance what was coming." Time for a history lesson. And a question for the author. Do you think the World War II Japanese didn't know months in advance what was coming ? You think Nazi generals thought Roosevelt and Eisenhower were going to sit it out ?
5. Here's another beaut >> "the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has," 2 words answer that. So what ? You mount a full scale invasion of Iran, you fight the Iranians, you defeat them, you take over the country 100%, And you scour every square foot of the country, leaving no stones unturned, with Jack Bauer in charge of interrogations. You destroy everything that resembles nuclear. And you keep there troops there forever. If troop can still be in Germany and Japan 70 years after world War II, they can stay in Iran where they really are needed. And anything less than this, is going to imperil the American people with the risk of nuclear attack (if not annihilation). It simply must be done.
6. Iran would not have a vendetta against the US. Does Germany have one now ? Does Iran ?
Even Vietnam doesn't , and they could justify one. The young Iranian people hate the jihadist lunatics who rule them. Those old rulers will die off, or if need be we could expedite that.
Lindsey Graham on War with Iran and the Lessons of Iraq - The Atlantic
