Do You Support The Possible Coming Wars With Iran & Syria?

[The Rabbi]

And here we see how the wookie suiters and the libs are really allies. There is no difference.

You should watch that documentary. See what you think.

I note the response of the narco-libertarians is almost exactly what the leftists was durng the Cold War: We are at fault. The Soviets are merely responding to our aggression, etc.
It was wrong, patently wrong then and it is again today.

 

[Mac1958]

The beloved Reagan was essentially a military Keynesian.

And now, we have an influential group of people who have convinced themselves that it is America's right and responsibility to stick its nose into the affairs of any country that cannot militarily defend itself. These are the people who want to convince us that the thousands of Americans lives lost in Iraq & Afghanistan, the thousand of limbs destroyed, the thousands of young Americans minds damaged beyond repair, and the trillions of dollars spent have somehow been "worth it". That nation-building in those two countries is more important than nation-building right here.

I believe that "American Exceptionalism" -- whatever in the world THAT is -- is our excuse, er, reason for doing all this.

.

 

[dblack]

And here we see how the wookie suiters and the libs are really allies. There is no difference.

You should watch that documentary. See what you think.

I note the response of the narco-libertarians is almost exactly what the leftists was durng the Cold War: We are at fault. The Soviets are merely responding to our aggression, etc.
It was wrong, patently wrong then and it is again today.

So, you didn't watch it?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Woah, woah, woah, hold on a minute.

Yes. We have the opportunity to clean out the Middle East and make it something better. Who wouldn't want that?

"Clean out"? We're fighting an idea, not a particular group. Cleaning out would mean the slaughter of most Muslims. You're calling for genocide. And I think the Muslims wouldn't want that. Even if you think I'm overreacting, perhaps we should ask the civilians who actually live over there if they want us to "better" their way of life.

Iraq was a dictatorial state with a 20 year history of state sponsored terrorism. they launched two wars against neighbors and gassed their own people.

Something the UN should have dealt with. And if the UN is such a defunct organization that they will never take action, then let's just go rogue and get it over with.

Now they are a US-leaning democratic state with human rights.
Why wouldn't we want to do that everywhere else in the ME?

No, they are first and foremost a shiite learning Muslim country, meaning they will most likely support Iran if something happens.

Human rights? Give it a few years.

The narco-libtard weenies whine about "non-intervention" meaning they don't give a shit about anyone else. That would be fine if we were an insignificant 3rd rate country on the backside of nowhere. But we're not. We are the sole superpower.

We are not the moral center of the universe. It is not our way or the highway, there's kind of a whole world out there that we have to work with. And I would like it if the world doesn't turn against us because they're afraid we'll come after them next.

 

[dblack]

We are not the moral center of the universe. It is not our way or the highway, there's kind of a whole world out there that we have to work with. And I would like it if the world doesn't turn against us because they're afraid we'll come after them next.

Well said.

 

[The Rabbi]

Woah, woah, woah, hold on a minute.

Yes. We have the opportunity to clean out the Middle East and make it something better. Who wouldn't want that?

"Clean out"? We're fighting an idea, not a particular group. Cleaning out would mean the slaughter of most Muslims. You're calling for genocide. And I think the Muslims wouldn't want that. Even if you think I'm overreacting, perhaps we should ask the civilians who actually live over there if they want us to "better" their way of life.

Iraq was a dictatorial state with a 20 year history of state sponsored terrorism. they launched two wars against neighbors and gassed their own people.

Something the UN should have dealt with. And if the UN is such a defunct organization that they will never take action, then let's just go rogue and get it over with.

Now they are a US-leaning democratic state with human rights.
Why wouldn't we want to do that everywhere else in the ME?

No, they are first and foremost a shiite learning Muslim country, meaning they will most likely support Iran if something happens.

Human rights? Give it a few years.

The narco-libtard weenies whine about "non-intervention" meaning they don't give a shit about anyone else. That would be fine if we were an insignificant 3rd rate country on the backside of nowhere. But we're not. We are the sole superpower.

We are not the moral center of the universe. It is not our way or the highway, there's kind of a whole world out there that we have to work with. And I would like it if the world doesn't turn against us because they're afraid we'll come after them next.

Over 10,000 people were not killed by an idea.
You failed to refute any point I made. In fact you supported one: The UN revealed itself as toothless and we did in fact enforce their own resolutions. This was something the Left harped on continuously.
Do you really want to say the world is not better off with Saddam gone?

 

[Katzndogz]

The West will not be able to negotiate survival with islam.

 

[Paulie]

There wont be a war with either Iran or Syria

Unless we elect Republicans

I wish I could be certain of that. The republicans certainly talk about it more. But bravado is different than will. Obama's willingness to keep the war machine running seems as solid as Bush. I have to give him some credit for getting us out of Iraq though. Didn't really think that would happen.

You can see the Republican saber rattling on Iran already. They are already convinced that not only does Iran have nukes (within weeks!) but they are ready to attack us!

Where have we seen this before?

You're going to take campaign rhetoric seriously? OF course the republicans are going to saber rattle.

You can clearly see what happens to GOP candidates when they DON'T saber rattle by looking no further than Paul. Besides Iowa and NH, he doesn't get above 10% nationally. And the only reason why is because of his foreign policy.

With Dems on the other hand, the opposite is true. Of course, as soon as they get into office the war machine continues.

When are you going to wake up to this fact, is the REAL question.

 

[kiwiman127]

It looks like we're headed in that direction. What do you think?

Yes. We have the opportunity to clean out the Middle East and make it something better. Who wouldn't want that?
Iraq was a dictatorial state with a 20 year history of state sponsored terrorism. they launched two wars against neighbors and gassed their own people. Now they are a US-leaning democratic state with human rights.Why wouldn't we want to do that everywhere else in the ME?
The narco-libtard weenies whine about "non-intervention" meaning they don't give a shit about anyone else. That would be fine if we were an insignificant 3rd rate country on the backside of nowhere. But we're not. We are the sole superpower.

Actually it's very questionable whether Iraq is "a US-leaning democratic state".

Sa'ad Youssef al-Mutalabi, a senior adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, told the BBC, that Iran's influence played a role in Iraq's refusal to let the US maintain troops in Iraq.
BBC News - Iran 'influenced' Iraq over US troops' exit
================================

Maysoun al-Damalouji is the spokesperson for the predominantly Sunni Iraqiya party. That party technically won the national elections last year. But then Iran stepped in to help form a larger Shiite coalition that managed to keep Maliki, a Shiite, in power.

Damalouji says this means Maliki owes Iran a few favors — whether it's support for the leader of Iran's other major Arab ally, Syria, or opposing the return of American military trainers to Iraq.
How Much Influence Will Iran Have In Iraq? : NPR
==================================

Today, Iraq is to Iran as Lebanon was to Syria," intoned an Iraqi politician during a recent off-the-record briefing in Washington. The sentiment is commonly expressed by Iraqis, the US's Arab allies and by many American diplomats and soldiers: that the United States removed Iran's most inveterate opponent - Saddam Hussein's regime - and then allowed Tehran to become the most influential outside power in Iraq.

But is it really "game, set, match to Iran"? Any assessment of Iran's influence in Iraq must centre on a review of Tehran's interests and objectives vis-a-vis its neighbour and historic rival. Above all other considerations, Tehran seeks to prevent Iraq from recovering as a military threat or as a launchpad for an American attack.

Some of these objectives have been achieved, for at least the current decade, by the removal of Saddam's regime, the de-Ba'athification of the security services and the ascent of former armed oppositionists into the leadership of post-Saddam Iraq.

Undertaking or supporting an attack upon Iran would simply be much harder for Iraqi politicians who relied upon Iran for protection during the last three decades of Ba'athist rule and who often made common cause with the Tehran against the Iraqi military. This is one reason why Iran has supported its Iraqi allies in their ongoing de-Ba'athification efforts and why it would prefer not to see a new, cross-sectarian nationalist bloc emerge in Iraq.

Looking forward, Iran's supporters in the Iraqi government will seek to complicate the task of negotiating a post-2011 US-Iraqi security agreement and to restrict the scale and effectiveness of American security assistance to Iraq's external security forces. Though Iranian-backed militancy in Iraq is an irritant in the two countries' relations, the al-Quds Brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), responsible for operations outside Iran, will maintain its ability to target US military personnel, diplomats and private citizens in Iraq, which could act as one source of deterrence against a US or Israeli military strike on Iran - a nightmare scenario for US generals and diplomats in Iraq.

In Iraq's economy, Iran has established a balance of trade and economic co-dependencies that favour Tehran and protect it, to some extent, from the potential impact of future armed attacks or sanctions.
Iran's influence in Iraq: Game, set but not match to Tehran | World news | The Guardian

 

[The Rabbi]

Iraq is independent, not a vassal. You think that means Iraq is not US leaning?

 

[jgarden]

It looks like we're headed in that direction. What do you think?

Both nations currently have a large number of dissidents trying to overthrow the government. An American attack would only solidify support around that existing government to fight against an outside aggressor.

Attacks against Syria and Iran would not be the military "walkovers" that it was in Iraq. Iran, in particular, has a much larger population and covers much more territory than Iraq.

American has precious little to show after spending years occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, why should Syria and Iran prove to be any better?

 

[The Rabbi]

It looks like we're headed in that direction. What do you think?

Both nations currently have a large number of dissidents trying to overthrow the government. An American attack would only solidify support around that existing government to fight against an outside aggressor.

Attacks against Syria and Iran would not be the military "walkovers" that it was in Iraq. Iran, in particular, has a much larger population and covers much more territory than Iraq.

American has precious little to show after spending years occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, why should Syria and Iran prove to be any better?

Iraq had the second largest army in the region. The Left predicted we would get bogged down, it would be a quagmire, it would be another Vietnam. And jumped on any piece of supporting evidence.
Iraq was a rogue state with a 20 year history of state supported terrorism. It is now the only democracy in the Arab world. Afghanistan was a repressive brutal regime that sponsored terrorism.
Both nations have been turned around.
I would hardly call that "precious little to show" for our involvement. Neither would the inhabitants.

 

[Paulie]

It looks like we're headed in that direction. What do you think?

Both nations currently have a large number of dissidents trying to overthrow the government. An American attack would only solidify support around that existing government to fight against an outside aggressor.

Attacks against Syria and Iran would not be the military "walkovers" that it was in Iraq. Iran, in particular, has a much larger population and covers much more territory than Iraq.

American has precious little to show after spending years occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, why should Syria and Iran prove to be any better?

Iraq had the second largest army in the region. The Left predicted we would get bogged down, it would be a quagmire, it would be another Vietnam. And jumped on any piece of supporting evidence.
Iraq was a rogue state with a 20 year history of state supported terrorism. It is now the only democracy in the Arab world. Afghanistan was a repressive brutal regime that sponsored terrorism.
Both nations have been turned around.
I would hardly call that "precious little to show" for our involvement. Neither would the inhabitants.

Cheney himself predicted it would be a quagmire. And he was right.

You never know the true will and potential of a people until you intrude upon their own territory.

You would do the same thing as the "insurgents" did if a nation invaded us and went door to door in your neighborhood.

 

[The Rabbi]

Both nations currently have a large number of dissidents trying to overthrow the government. An American attack would only solidify support around that existing government to fight against an outside aggressor.

Attacks against Syria and Iran would not be the military "walkovers" that it was in Iraq. Iran, in particular, has a much larger population and covers much more territory than Iraq.

American has precious little to show after spending years occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, why should Syria and Iran prove to be any better?

Iraq had the second largest army in the region. The Left predicted we would get bogged down, it would be a quagmire, it would be another Vietnam. And jumped on any piece of supporting evidence.
Iraq was a rogue state with a 20 year history of state supported terrorism. It is now the only democracy in the Arab world. Afghanistan was a repressive brutal regime that sponsored terrorism.
Both nations have been turned around.
I would hardly call that "precious little to show" for our involvement. Neither would the inhabitants.

Cheney himself predicted it would be a quagmire. And he was right.

You never know the true will and potential of a people until you intrude upon their own territory.

You would do the same thing as the "insurgents" did if a nation invaded us and went door to door in your neighborhood.

I always knew you were a nit-wit. This just confirms it.

 

[dblack]

Iraq had the second largest army in the region. The Left predicted we would get bogged down, it would be a quagmire, it would be another Vietnam. And jumped on any piece of supporting evidence.
Iraq was a rogue state with a 20 year history of state supported terrorism. It is now the only democracy in the Arab world. Afghanistan was a repressive brutal regime that sponsored terrorism.
Both nations have been turned around.
I would hardly call that "precious little to show" for our involvement. Neither would the inhabitants.

Cheney himself predicted it would be a quagmire. And he was right.

You never know the true will and potential of a people until you intrude upon their own territory.

You would do the same thing as the "insurgents" did if a nation invaded us and went door to door in your neighborhood.

I always knew you were a nit-wit. This just confirms it.

Good answer, good answer!

 

[old navy]

The beloved Reagan was essentially a military Keynesian.

And now, we have an influential group of people who have convinced themselves that it is America's right and responsibility to stick its nose into the affairs of any country that cannot militarily defend itself. These are the people who want to convince us that the thousands of Americans lives lost in Iraq & Afghanistan, the thousand of limbs destroyed, the thousands of young Americans minds damaged beyond repair, and the trillions of dollars spent have somehow been "worth it". That nation-building in those two countries is more important than nation-building right here.

I believe that "American Exceptionalism" -- whatever in the world THAT is -- is our excuse, er, reason for doing all this.

.

whoa, how did you type this while holding that hammer and sickle comrade?

American exceptionalism has to do with freedom and the price paid to secure and maintain that freedom.

 

[jgarden]

It looks like we're headed in that direction. What do you think?

Both nations currently have a large number of dissidents trying to overthrow the government. An American attack would only solidify support around that existing government to fight against an outside aggressor.

Attacks against Syria and Iran would not be the military "walkovers" that it was in Iraq. Iran, in particular, has a much larger population and covers much more territory than Iraq.

American has precious little to show after spending years occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, why should Syria and Iran prove to be any better?

Iraq had the second largest army in the region. The Left predicted we would get bogged down, it would be a quagmire, it would be another Vietnam. And jumped on any piece of supporting evidence.
Iraq was a rogue state with a 20 year history of state supported terrorism. It is now the only democracy in the Arab world. Afghanistan was a repressive brutal regime that sponsored terrorism.
Both nations have been turned around.
I would hardly call that "precious little to show" for our involvement. Neither would the inhabitants.

All very interesting BUT those weren't the arguments being forwarded by the Bush Administration to the United Nations and the American people when it was trying to convince them to support a US led invasion.

Accorded to that Administration, Iraq needed to be invaded for one and one reason only - to protect Iraq's neighbors and the world from the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Interestingly enough, this is the one reason that conveniently slipped "The Rabbi's" memory!

After the Bush Administration was finally forced to confront the fact that it couldn't find any WMD in Iraq, it quickly performed a political "bait and switch" in a desperate attempt to provide the American public with other "rationalizations" to justify its misguided invasion.

 

[kiwiman127]

Iraq is independent, not a vassal. You think that means Iraq is not US leaning?

Do you actually trust Nouri al-Maliki?

As stated by Maliki's assistant, Iran's influence played a part with Iraq's decision not to extend US troops presence in Iraq.

Maliki lived in exile in both Syria and Iran.

Earlier in a post you noted that Iraq now has human rights, for whom? The Sunni population has been marginalized. Right after the troops left Maliki has gone on the offensive against Iraq's own Sunni government officials, to the point of briefly arresting his own Sunni VP!
As US troops exit Iraq, Maliki moves against Sunni rivals - CSMonitor.com.

Iraq has a Shia majority just like Iran. Iraq and Iran are the only two countries in the Middle East that have Shia led governments. With Saddam (a Sunni) gone, it opened the door for Iran to influence Iraq and for Iraq to welcome Iran's trade and enterprise, which Iraq has done.

Based on Malili's actions and history, I wouldn't bet the farm that he leans more to the US than he does to Iran.

 

[The Rabbi]

Both nations currently have a large number of dissidents trying to overthrow the government. An American attack would only solidify support around that existing government to fight against an outside aggressor.

Attacks against Syria and Iran would not be the military "walkovers" that it was in Iraq. Iran, in particular, has a much larger population and covers much more territory than Iraq.

American has precious little to show after spending years occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, why should Syria and Iran prove to be any better?

Iraq had the second largest army in the region. The Left predicted we would get bogged down, it would be a quagmire, it would be another Vietnam. And jumped on any piece of supporting evidence.
Iraq was a rogue state with a 20 year history of state supported terrorism. It is now the only democracy in the Arab world. Afghanistan was a repressive brutal regime that sponsored terrorism.
Both nations have been turned around.
I would hardly call that "precious little to show" for our involvement. Neither would the inhabitants.

All very interesting BUT those weren't the arguments being forwarded by the Bush Administration to the United Nations and the American people when it was trying to convince them to support a US led invasion.

Accorded to that Administration, Iraq needed to be invaded for one and one reason only - to protect Iraq's neighbors and the world from the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Interestingly enough, this is the one reason that conveniently slipped "The Rabbi's" memory!

After the Bush Administration was finally forced to confront the fact that it couldn't find any WMD in Iraq, it quickly performed a political "bait and switch" in a desperate attempt to provide the American public with other "rationalizations" to justify its misguided invasion.

That actually is not the one and reason only.
Iraqi War Resolution - Text of Iraq Resolution and Roll Call Vote Authorizing War In Iraq

There was never one reason and one only.

 

[The Rabbi]

Iraq is independent, not a vassal. You think that means Iraq is not US leaning?

Do you actually trust Nouri al-Maliki?

As stated by Maliki's assistant, Iran's influence played a part with Iraq's decision not to extend US troops presence in Iraq.

Maliki lived in exile in both Syria and Iran.

Earlier in a post you noted that Iraq now has human rights, for whom? The Sunni population has been marginalized. Right after the troops left Maliki has gone on the offensive against Iraq's own Sunni government officials, to the point of briefly arresting his own Sunni VP!
As US troops exit Iraq, Maliki moves against Sunni rivals - CSMonitor.com.

Iraq has a Shia majority just like Iran. Iraq and Iran are the only two countries in the Middle East that have Shia led governments. With Saddam (a Sunni) gone, it opened the door for Iran to influence Iraq and for Iraq to welcome Iran's trade and enterprise, which Iraq has done.

Based on Malili's actions and history, I wouldn't bet the farm that he leans more to the US than he does to Iran.

Is Maliki the dictator in Iraq? Since when?