Warning Iran

[DeadCanDance]

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. Think I've been around where he was on two-maybe-three times, so try again.

You can call them IAEA, or Hans Blix, or whoever you choose. The fact is, Saddam was accused of having WMDs, and he did. I did not include nukes in "WMD's" ... the media did. In the military they are referred to as nuclear, checmical and biological weapons, and specifically identified.

No matter what you choose to call the lackeys of the UN, only some on the left/Bush haters appear to have faith in their ability to do a damned thing. I'd as soon trust the 3 years old next door to tell me whether or not Iran had nukes as trust any of these completely ball-less, paper tiger international committees on jerking off.

edit: I haven't told anyone to trust Bush. You're making it an either or. I trust the facts, logic and common sense before I trust any one person or agency. None of them support your argument.

The fact is, Saddam was accused of having WMDs, and he did.

What are you talking about? Multiple US investigators have concluded he didn't when we invaded.

Are you talking about way back in the 1980s, when he used them on the iranians? Well, of course we knew he had them, he was using them on the battlefield against the iranians with our tacit and tactical support.

At any rate, that's a diversion. Iran is not accused of threatening the united states with bio/chem weapons. In fact bio/chem weapons are only useful as tactical battlefield weapons, and even then only under certain conditions. They aren't a strategic threat to the U.S. worthy of waging war half way around the world.

That's why I specifically cite IAEA. They are the nuke experts, and Bush supporters have claimed iran is actively building a bomb. IAEA says there's no evidence of that. Although, its prudent to remain suspicious and continue to make the iranians make their program more transparent.

 

[Paulie]

It bothers me, but I am not active duty nor are you, so I let it go. It is not worth fighting over. When I was a Marine SSGT on an Army base you can bet I did not let army troops call me Sgt. Nor did any of the GySgts or MSgts. In fact I never called an army SSGT , SFC or MSgt Sgt either.

I served in the AF, and in that branch, Sgt. is the preferred title when addressing an NCO unless it's a CMSgt. You don't dare refer to a Chief as Sgt. And no AF NCO would tolerate "sarge" either. I always used "Sgt." because it was acceptable, and i got so tired of saying Sir.

I'm honestly not familiar with Marine or Army customs as far as addressing NCO's.

What i definitely don't understand, is why Marine GySgt's despise "sarge", but love "gunny". To me, it seems almost like 6 of one, half dozen the other. I mean, you wouldn't call a Tech Sgt in the AF "Techie".

 

[Paulie]

The fact is, Saddam was accused of having WMDs, and he did.

What are you talking about? Multiple US investigators have concluded he didn't when we invaded.

Are you talking about way back in the 1980s, when he used them on the iranians? Well, of course we knew he had them, he was using them on the battlefield against the iranians with our tacit and tactical support.

At any rate, that's a diversion. Iran is not accused of threatening the united states with bio/chem weapons. In fact bio/chem weapons are only useful as tactical battlefield weapons, and even then only under certain conditions. They aren't a strategic threat to the U.S. worthy of waging war half way around the world.

That's why I specifically cite IAEA. They are the nuke experts, and Bush supporters have claimed iran is actively building a bomb. IAEA says there's no evidence of that. Although, its prudent to remain suspicious and continue to make the iranians make their program more transparent.

This post pretty much sums it up. It makes complete sense.

Why should Americans trust the Bush admin on pre-emptively invading another country for what amounts to the same reasons as before?

It's quite possible Iran is defiant about it's nuke program because it just doesn't GIVE a fuck what Bush and Cheney want. Maybe if the US was willing to sit down with the Iranians and diplomatically work the situation out, they might be completely willing to open their doors and show the world what they're doing. The fact of the matter is that they are a sovereign nation, and they don't have to just obey Bush's "orders".

You can call me a "terrorist sympathizer", but I applaud them for standing up to Bush. They won't have a nuclear missile built before Bush leaves office anyway, even if they WERE building one, so when Bush finally goes, hopefully the next administration will have some fucking sense, and go back to diplomacy.

If the next administration is more willing to be diplomatic with Iran and not take such a hard line approach, and Iran is STILL defiant, then i say maybe it might be time to wonder what's going on.

I just don't agree with ordering a nuclear strike against ANYONE. That kind of thing is supposed to be the LAST OF THE LAST resort. Much less, invading and occupying yet another nation out of "suspicions".

 

[Gunny]

The fact is, Saddam was accused of having WMDs, and he did.

What are you talking about? Multiple US investigators have concluded he didn't when we invaded.

"He didn't when we invaded" ... What "multiple US investigators have concluded" as an after-the-fact event is rather irrelevant to what most the vast majority of people in the US and around the world believed, based on Saddam's PROVEN track record, PRIOR TO invading.
Are you talking about way back in the 1980s, when he used them on the iranians? Well, of course we knew he had them, he was using them on the battlefield against the iranians with our tacit and tactical support.

DO find an official statement of ANY administration that approved of Saddam's using chemical weapons. Hint: Speculative opeds don't count.

At any rate, that's a diversion. Iran is not accused of threatening the united states with bio/chem weapons. In fact bio/chem weapons are only useful as tactical battlefield weapons, and even then only under certain conditions. They aren't a strategic threat to the U.S. worthy of waging war half way around the world.

That's why I specifically cite IAEA. They are the nuke experts, and Bush supporters have claimed iran is actively building a bomb. IAEA says there's no evidence of that. Although, its prudent to remain suspicious and continue to make the iranians make their program more transparent.

Fine. It isn't only Bush supporters that claim Iran is actively pursuing nukes. Stop trying to politicize a common sense and logic thing. If it walks, smells and quacks like a duck, it isn't a cow.

Hiding your head in the sand and pretending the obvious isn't happening based on a game of literalism just gets that ass you left hanging in the air shot off. "Whoops" is too late.

 

[Gunny]

This post pretty much sums it up. It makes complete sense.

Why should Americans trust the Bush admin on pre-emptively invading another country for what amounts to the same reasons as before?

It's quite possible Iran is defiant about it's nuke program because it just doesn't GIVE a fuck what Bush and Cheney want. Maybe if the US was willing to sit down with the Iranians and diplomatically work the situation out, they might be completely willing to open their doors and show the world what they're doing. The fact of the matter is that they are a sovereign nation, and they don't have to just obey Bush's "orders".

You can call me a "terrorist sympathizer", but I applaud them for standing up to Bush. They won't have a nuclear missile built before Bush leaves office anyway, even if they WERE building one, so when Bush finally goes, hopefully the next administration will have some fucking sense, and go back to diplomacy.

If the next administration is more willing to be diplomatic with Iran and not take such a hard line approach, and Iran is STILL defiant, then i say maybe it might be time to wonder what's going on.

I just don't agree with ordering a nuclear strike against ANYONE. That kind of thing is supposed to be the LAST OF THE LAST resort. Much less, invading and occupying yet another nation out of "suspicions".

Again, I haven't said a damned thing about trusting the Bush admin. It must be a hard thing to see past politics to common sense and logic. Trying to blame this one Bush doesn't cut it.

 

[Paulie]

Again, I haven't said a damned thing about trusting the Bush admin. It must be a hard thing to see past politics to common sense and logic. Trying to blame this one Bush doesn't cut it.

Gunny, outside of the US corporate media, where else do you see anyone besides the Bush admin taking this hard-line approach?

It's the US who is advocating sanctions, and it's the US who is advocating pre-emptive attacks.

I understand France and Britain SEEM to be on board, but they certainly aren't making it one of their main foreign policy priorities...not to mention, even if military actions were undertaken, you know damn well they'd barely offer enough troops and resources to even MATTER.

I'm not sure about Germany, and I KNOW Russia and China are not on board.

So when it comes to accepting the propaganda about Iran's supposed evil intentions, it's the Bush admin that is requesting the majority of the trust.

I mean shit, if you're France or Germany, do you even dare vote NO at a Security Council resolution, even if you disagreed? I highly doubt it.

And that's where it all comes back to politics. It always does.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny, outside of the US corporate media, where else do you see anyone besides the Bush admin taking this hard-line approach?

It's the US who is advocating sanctions, and it's the US who is advocating pre-emptive attacks.

I understand France and Britain SEEM to be on board, but they certainly aren't making it one of their main foreign policy priorities...not to mention, even if military actions were undertaken, you know damn well they'd barely offer enough troops and resources to even MATTER.

I'm not sure about Germany, and I KNOW Russia and China are not on board.

So when it comes to accepting the propaganda about Iran's supposed evil intentions, it's the Bush admin that is requesting the majority of the trust.

I mean shit, if you're France or Germany, do you even dare vote NO at a Security Council resolution, even if you disagreed? I highly doubt it.

And that's where it all comes back to politics. It always does.

You missed my point entirely. I am neither President Bush, nor the corporate media. My opinion is not based on them, Germany, France, nor anyone else.

It's based on common sense, logic and fact. Iran openly supports terrorist organization -- Hezbollah and Hamas. They support Shia terrorists in iraq. THAT goes to evidence of Iran's willingness to adhere to law.

Iran is openly hostile to and calls for the destruction of another country based on race/religion. Iran publicly officially denies the Holocaust.

Iran is hostile to the west and in particular the US.

Iran government is controlled by religious fanatics who among other things, teaches that there's special place in Heaven for those who commit suicide taking out as many infidels as possible.

And you want to allow them to possess the power to destroy the world? Just what is it you think you can say or do once they ALREADY HAVE nuke tipped ICBMs aimed at every Western capital, and or every major US city? Oops, we goofed?

Won't be a damned thing to do then but acquiesce to Iran's demands or they'll just take the infidel world with them. And no amount of defense net will save the world from nuclear winter if those missles are shot down in our atmosphere.

It's my opinion in this case it's just not worth taking the chance.

 

[steeliniraq]

Hey GunnyL these guys dont care. They get it but they dont care. Once again people would rather not confront the problem and let it linger. It takes too much time, too much energy, too much money to fix it. Just keep pushing the problems of our country and the world off to the side until it explodes in our faces. What does all of this remind me of? Ummmmm, oh yea, Nazi Germany! Bottom line people would rather bitch about the problem then confront the problem.