Pre-emptive military strike to Iran, goin' out with a bang, baby!

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, August 13, 2026 00:50
VIEWED: 6409
PAGE 2 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

FLETCH2

Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:58 PM

The problem with that I think is that the EU has no interest in going along with it. France and Germany can hardly be accused of being on the administrations friends list and even the UK has said that military action would be unjustified.

Besides Iraq makes any show of force politically difficult for the administration, US forces are too overtaxed for a boots on the ground mission and this close to an election there would be alligations of "wag the dog" even without Iraq. With a significant number of independent Americans believing they were deceived into the Iraq war messing with Iran now could be an electoral disaster for the GOP.

RUE

Friday, April 14, 2006 1:41 AM

messing with Iran now could be an electoral disaster for the GOP

I seriously hope you're right and that it is a deciding factor.

Bush is beating war-drums like he did before Afghanistan and Iraq but now he's threatening preemptive tactical nukes. He's trying to back Iran into a corner just like he did with Afghaistan and Iraq, where the only way out is war.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

G1223

Friday, April 14, 2006 2:04 AM

Well there is always the nickle and dimed diplospeak that will have us giving Iran a ICBM just to make them happy. After all we need to appease the Arab world and let them nuke Israel and then stand around and wait for Israel to die. Then we can wait for them to go after India or punish Europe for setting up Israel in the first place.

The long and short you either stop Iran because we know they are dangerous. Or you allow all their evil acts to happen and then do like England and France did in 1939 make a heroic stand after giving away Austira and Czechslovakia. Except it was the US that appeased the dictators rather than other nations.

TANSTAAFL

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, April 14, 2006 2:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by G1223:
Well there is always the nickle and dimed diplospeak that will have us giving Iran a ICBM just to make them happy. After all we need to appease the Arab world and let them nuke Israel and then stand around and wait for Israel to die. Then we can wait for them to go after India or punish Europe for setting up Israel in the first place.

The long and short you either stop Iran because we know they are dangerous. Or you allow all their evil acts to happen and then do like England and France did in 1939 make a heroic stand after giving away Austira and Czechslovakia. Except it was the US that appeased the dictators rather than other nations.

TANSTAAFL

If Israel is to survive it has to find a way to play nice with others, if not it will be on life support forever... and that isn't completely the fault of the arabs...

As for appeasement to dangerous countries, many feel exactly that way about the US right now, just because they don't like the US ( they have good reason not to ) the same is true for Europe, although the Europeans have mended many the fences they knocked down 1880-1925. Having reason not to kiss ass and bow down to someone doesn't make them evil. And India ? WTF

As for ICBM's they don't need yours, they do better to build them on their own
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/31904609-9FDD-4FEB-BC78-8F0AD6D
0173A.htm

And as far as WWII is concerned... if the Europeans should have rushed to kick off a war, why did the US wait a year and a half to pick a side ? why did they continue to sell steel and other war supplies to both sides up to the point they had to enter the war ?

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

FREDGIBLET

Friday, April 14, 2006 6:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

And as far as WWII is concerned... if the Europeans should have rushed to kick off a war, why did the US wait a year and a half to pick a side ? why did they continue to sell steel and other war supplies to both sides up to the point they had to enter the war ?

Simple, the same reason why the British and French didn't try to stop Hitler earlier, World War 1 was the "war to end all wars", none of the European countries wanted to face the prospect of another war (except Germany). No one wanted another war around that time, in fact I have heard some people say, though I haven't investigated it myself, that Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and he allowed it to give the Americans a push into WW2. We knew which side we would be on but the people in general did not want to go to war and did not want to p*** off either side. But this is coming from what I remember from when I went through a WW2 phase a few years ago so I could be wrong.

PIRATEJENNY

Friday, April 14, 2006 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I used to be outraged by the Bush crime spree. Now I just view it all in a kind of paralyzed horror.

I'm betting that he's going to pop the cork a few months before the 2006 election. But do you think the American people will fall for this again? And if not, what will "the people" do? Protest? Stay away from the polls in droves or turn out and vote Democrat? And what will Bush do? Jigger the electronic vote (again)? Allow a terrorist incident? Or will the powers behind the throne assasinate their lame-duck no-longer-popular Presidential puppet? Either leads to martial law.

I don't think people realize, but we really had a coup in the USA. It was masked by the fact that the President and his "war on terror" was very popular post-9-11 and for a few years after. But the velvet glove will come off the iron fist pretty soon.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

My guess is we will probably have some big manufactured incident trumped up by this administration, a bomb dropped in california, but not L.A or Sanfransico, that would be to economically devasting,

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, April 14, 2006 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

And as far as WWII is concerned... if the Europeans should have rushed to kick off a war, why did the US wait a year and a half to pick a side ? why did they continue to sell steel and other war supplies to both sides up to the point they had to enter the war ?

Simple, the same reason why the British and French didn't try to stop Hitler earlier, World War 1 was the "war to end all wars", none of the European countries wanted to face the prospect of another war (except Germany). No one wanted another war around that time, in fact I have heard some people say, though I haven't investigated it myself, that Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and he allowed it to give the Americans a push into WW2. We knew which side we would be on but the people in general did not want to go to war and did not want to p*** off either side. But this is coming from what I remember from when I went through a WW2 phase a few years ago so I could be wrong.

Despite Roosevelt, there were many high ranking Americans who supported the Nazi cause, and either wanted to back Germany finacially or even enter the war on the side of Germany. Joe Kennedy, Senator Prescott Bush, and bunch of Bankers and Industrialist I can't remember of the top of my head. The point I was trying to make was that the guy I was responing to was critical of the Europeans for not attacking Germany much sooner, perhaps when Germany annexed the Czechs and alluded that the US would have acted differently... I think history shows he is wrong there. I also think without Japan attacking Hawaii
and Germanys declaration of war ( which has been called into doubt by some historians ) at best the US would have remained neutral.

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, April 14, 2006 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

No one wanted another war around that time, in fact I have heard some people say, though I haven't investigated it myself, that Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and he allowed it to give the Americans a push into WW2. We knew which side we would be on but the people in general did not want to go to war and did not want to p*** off either side. But this is coming from what I remember from when I went through a WW2 phase a few years ago so I could be wrong.

Authors, historians, theorists, and "experts" have said that the Brits had uncovered intel about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor & that Churchill was told. Popular theory is that Churchill told FDR who sat back & let it happen.

It is no secret that FDR wanted in the war early on & wanted to help the Brits. He sent "relief" supplies to England & who knows what else. FDR of course could not get the american people behind him though because we were in a isolationist phase & wanted to be left alone & not drug into foreign affairs. The memories (& nightmares) of WWI were still fresh in our minds & the US did not want to be involved in another world war. FDR knew that an unprovoked attack on US troops was the only way to galvanize the people behind the war. Guess he got his way.

__________________________________________

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

RUE

Friday, April 14, 2006 7:05 PM

So back on the topic:

I guess no one remembers Afghanistan or Iraq.

First bush said bring ObL to justice, upped it to dead or alive, escalated to ObL and al-Qaida leaders, then the entire al-Qaida, then included Taliban and Afghanistan, then said anyone anywhere who harbors 'terrorists'. The coda which took all of 2 weeks was you are either with us, or you're with the terrorists

In Iraq, the pretext was WMD, a presentation to the UN, demanding documentation, demanding inspections, and finally demanding that Hussein et al leave Iraq as a condition to avoid war.

In both cases bush repeatedly upped the ante creating a pretext to invade.

He's doing the same with Iran. He's creating the pretext for war.

All technical experts say Iran is years away from nuclear weapons if indeed they can develop the technology at all. (Just like the experts said Iraq had no nuclear program and was not a threat to the US, and the inspectors said they were no WMDs.) But you won't hear this - all you'll hear is bush and his consorts rabidly foaming about Iran.

Anyone up for a nuclear war?

SIGNYM

Friday, April 14, 2006 7:23 PM

Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran... same drumbeat, different dance floor.

Let's see, the reason for invading Grenada was because of the presence of Cuban troops. Not that the US medical students studying there ever noticed....

Panama. Ah, yes. Unbeknownst to us, Noriega was a major drug runner. MAJOR. In fact, all by his lonesome he was destabilizng the USA! So we invaded Panama (not Colombia) and the drug traffic didn't slow a whit.

Afghanistan. I think Rue covered that very well. Meanwheil the orginal pretext for invasion- OBL- is alive and living in Pakistan.

Iraq. Pictures of mushroom-clouds danced in our heads- thanks to Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bush.

Iran. Well, they MIGHT have nuclear weapons some day! Meanwhile, North Korea has the nukes and the ICBMs to go with them, and we 're doing.... what???

Sometimes I depsair of the notion that we as a people will EVER learn from experience! PT Barnum was right.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE