posted on January 1, 2006 11:26:16 AM new
As we've all been hearing, Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons even though several countries have tried to work with them to prevent their continuation of their plans.
What are your opinions???? If they don't agree to stop....what do YOU suggest the U.S. do about it?
---------------
Dec. 31, 2005 19:33 | Updated Jan. 1, 2006 6:38
'US planning strike against Iran'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Talkbacks for this article: 200
The United States government reportedly began coordinating with NATO its plans for a possible military attack against Iran.
The German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel collected various reports from the German media indicating that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are examining the prospects of such a strike.
According to the report, CIA Director Porter Goss, in his last visit to Turkey on December 12, requested Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide military bases to the United States in 2006 from where they would be able to launch an assault.
The German news agency DDP also noted that countries neighboring Iran, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, and Pakistan were also updated regarding the supposed plan.
American sources sent to those countries apparently mentioned an aerial attack as a possibility, but did not provide a time frame for the operation.
Although Der Spiegel could not say that these plans were concrete, they did note that according to a January 2005 New Yorker report American forces had entered Iran in 2005 in order to mark possible targets for an aerial assault.
posted on January 1, 2006 11:37:01 AM new
We do not have the miltary resources to deal with Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time.
We need to work with NATO to find a way to bring about a compromise that does not involve our miltary.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on January 1, 2006 11:43:54 AM new
As I read this article, that's exactly what is going on. But the discussion ALSO is about air strikes....which we could handle with no problem.
posted on January 1, 2006 11:47:36 AM new
If we strike Iran, I believe Korea will enter it. We are strapped military and monetarily. I think it would be a move worse than Iraq.
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on January 1, 2006 12:31:53 PM new
At this point, I don't think there's much we can do. I think the rest of the world needs to stop looking to us to do it, IMO. I don't think there are too many people in this country that would support a strike against Iran. Not after Iraq, anyway. I know the leadership in Iran is dangerous, however, there has to come a point when we stop telling other countries what they can and cannot do especially if we are doing it ourselves. We have shown the world how dangerous we really are by attacking Iraq. It should never be "our way or the highway". IOW, "our way or we blow up your highways". We have to stop giving others a reason to harm us.
What people have to really need understand and embrace is that there are cultures in the world far different from ours. Until we stop trying to change them into something they are not, we're not going to be a well liked country. Maybe my opinion is this way because I was taught to embrace people's differences, not change them. What I have learned from the Middle Eastern people here since 9/11 and the Iraq war, goes a long way in helping me to understand why the insurgency continues to be so strong. Right or wrong, there are those over there who are fighting to preserve their way of life. It's most certainly not a way of life I'd want, but that's not the point.
If we were attacked like we attacked Iraq, wouldn't we fight just as hard against an occupation? From what I read on this board about how much everyone loves their way of life here, I think we would.
Okay, enough rattling. I didn't get much sleep last night. My granddaughter snores something awful!!
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on January 1, 2006 12:35:54 PM new
It's our job to poe-lease the world. We can't let these dishtowel headed non-believers get ahold of the bomb. We need to carpet bomb that pissant heathen country into submission right now and be done with it. God is on our side. Remember, he told the president to go to the middle east in the first place.
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
posted on January 1, 2006 12:49:38 PM new
Rest well, cheryl.
Where I totally disagree with your statements:
We have to stop giving others a reason to harm us.
What I believe is we need to do what is necessary to PROTECT ourselves from the evil religious leaders/clerics who run Iran...who would like nothing better than to have these weapons and use them on us.
What people have to really need understand and embrace is that there are cultures in the world far different from ours.
I believe we DO just that here in America. It's NOT, imo, a matter of understanding them better, it's a matter of understanding how much they hate our way of life and how they'd like to change our country into one just like theirs....run by their clerics....only allowing their beliefs....not at all like we have it here in America.
Until we stop trying to change them into something they are not, we're not going to be a well liked country.
This is where I think you and others that agree with you fall so short of being able to see the true reality of our world. These aren't peaceful people that just want to live their lives and they're not people that work towards peace. You don't see America striking at all the peaceful countries in this world, even though we differ to GREAT degrees on their gov. systems.
I think you're in denial of their goals. You put the blame on America when if they weren't a threat to us....to the world....there would be no issue to begin with. We would leave them alone.
Maybe my opinion is this way because I was taught to embrace people's differences, not change them.
I don't think that has much of anything to do with this issue. You certainly wouldn't 'hang' with those same 'friends' you've met or grown to love IF they kept expressing their hatred of your way of life. You'd shine them on and probably never speak to them again. BUT should they then present a threat to you and your family....I believe you'd take action to stop it.
To me, that's exactly what we're doing on a National level.
What I have learned from the Middle Eastern people here since 9/11 and the Iraq war, goes a long way in helping me to understand why the insurgency continues to be so strong.
There's that leftist word usage again...insurgency. They're terrorists cheryl, who are fighting AGAINST a FREE society in Iraq. But I understand way too many of you here on the left thing saddam should have been left to 'keep the people under HIS rule'. Being the nice guy that he is. So much better for all the 26 million Iraqi's to live under his rule than to be a free nation. I simply don't agree.
Right or wrong, there are those over there who are fighting to preserve their way of life. It's most certainly not a way of life I'd want, but that's not the point.
But MOST Iraqi's WANT freedom, that's what YOU ignore. They want the terrorist to STOP....they're NOT supporting them. They don't appreciate the terrorists blowing them and their children up. Believe it or not.
If we were attacked like we attacked Iraq, wouldn't we fight just as hard against an occupation? From what I read on this board about how much everyone loves their way of life here, I think we would.
Well let's see. When clinton ONLY did air attacks on Iraq in 1998.....sure didn't lead to that did it? Nope it didn't.
And all the worries the left had when we were going into Iraq....about all the other Arab countries would side with saddam and we've have to fight them all....never came about either, cheryl.
So...while I do believe we need to take N. Korea's nuclear weapon abilities into consideration....it doesn't guarantee they will join in the fight. They might decide not to join in.....as the other ME countries chose to not become involved in the War.
posted on January 1, 2006 12:54:46 PM new
Not too funny, imo, profe.
Especially since you appear to be ignoring how many OTHER countries don't want to see Iran with nuclear weapons either. And those countries have been trying to get Iran to agree to stop.
But, of course, to some it's only the big, bad USA that doesn't want Iran with nuclear weapons.
posted on January 1, 2006 01:35:29 PM new
Look at it from their point of view:
A) Iran will keep on building and there is a slight chance the U.S. *MIGHT* make them stop before they finish. Maybe a some Iranian citizens go to meet Allah in the process. Not a problem for true believers in a Theocracy.
B) They keep building and once they have finished their nukes, there is no way we can ever enter their country. The best defense is a good offense. No one can bother Iran again.
What motivation does Iran have NOT to create Nukes? NONE. No amount of talking will stop them.
From OUR point of view, their are other factors, such as as Iran's own aggressiveness and fundamentalist rule, but THEY don't see that as a problem.
--------------------------------------
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum sonatur.
posted on January 1, 2006 01:39:54 PM new
This is it, folks.
Start building yer ark now. Remembers to take two of each kind of animal with you (preferably a male and female so dars can be more after yer boat survives the nukclear sludge ride.)
posted on January 1, 2006 02:50:16 PM new
I think we should back Israel and let them take care of Iran. We should supply them with the Nuclear weapon that will be needed.
Don't we have something now that will incinerate the camel jockeys and not hurt the Oil?
Sound a little cold hearted?
Well your right.
I'm sick of this Middle East crap and the only way out of it is to remove the offending regions, Lock stock and towelhead.
And Prof.,
Yes we are the world police. It was the UN that made us just that.
We are the world's care givers too.
I wonder if any of the cowardly bast*rd nations that didn't back us last time will this time.
I know Francis won't and from your statement I guess Mexico won't either.
posted on January 1, 2006 03:01:04 PM new
I don't know what we'll decide to do, quite honestly.
But if a majority in Congress supported clinton's bombing of Iraq in '98 to destroy what he said were their nuclear weapons programs....then I don't see how, as a last resort, this President wouldn't be supported in doing the same thing in Iran....should it come to that.
I am more worried about the consequences we'd face from Korea. Then who would be next? China? Japan? IMO, this is asking for WWIII, a war that I think no one would win. I don't know about you, but I'm not in that big a hurry to meet my maker.
Edited to add: You don't have to agree with me, but it is sure nice to be able to disagree without all the fighting for once! I have enough of that around here.
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
[ edited by cblev65252 on Jan 1, 2006 03:05 PM ]
posted on January 1, 2006 03:18:53 PM new "I am more worried about the consequences we'd face from Korea. Then who would be next? China? Japan? IMO, this is asking for WWIII, a war that I think no one would win. I don't know about you, but I'm not in that big a hurry to meet my maker.
Exactly right, Cheryl,
The consequences to the troops in Iraq would be horrific resulting in large scale attacks there. Whatever government they have would fail. China could retaliate by disinvesting in the U.S economy...they hold massive US dept. The economy could be hurt badly by boycots.
The terrorist threat would escalate beyond imagination.
I doubt that even the Bush administration is crazy enough to nuke Iran.
posted on January 1, 2006 03:21:28 PM new
cheryl - I do understand your concerns....but where we disagree is on whether it's best to wait until they do have them....then deal with an attack that 'might' come from them. Not just our country....but on any Nation they don't like.
Or...do we proactively take action as we did in 1998 and again in this war. That's the decision our Congress and President is going to have to make.
And I couldn't agree more....I've always wanted to be able to state differing opinions/positions without all the other garbage. After all....whether we [collectively] agree with one another or not....we ARE all in this together. And we ALL will suffer/or not the consequences together.
posted on January 1, 2006 03:35:38 PM new
"But what is YOUR own position on this hot issue, replay."
There are both political and moral issues in conflict with the entire situation.
Politically, there has not been enough talk on the subject to please the anti-war people. Also, America has been hammered with so much anti-war media that there is no way the American people would support an assault on Iran, even if that was the wise thing to do. That's not even considering the very real question of Iran's allies and our ability to fight a awr on so many fronts. It's just a politcal mess, and we all will agree on that.
Once again, I have to bring up the moral and religious situation, which really does override the political ones from the Iranian point of view. The Muslims will not be happy until everyone on Earth is a Muslim.
A quite from Cblev6562 was "Maybe my opinion is this way because I was taught to embrace people's differences, not change them." And that's well and good, and best outlook. Except for the fact that THEY will not embrace any other opinion. If you are willing to embrace their rules/lifestyle and they are absolutely unwilling to embrace yours, what is the only possibly outcome? You will eventually surrender to them. They will not stop.
The Muslims want to go back to controlling the world, like they did until the crusaders drove them back a thousand years ago. I still think it's amazing how many people preach that the crusades were a bad thing. Yes, the crusaders got carried away, and many of the battles were a waste of time, but if they had not been there, you'd be wearing a birka now.
I do NOT want to get into the genocide argument again, but there is no peaceful solution to this. One side or the other will have to wipe out the other.
Unless... Democracy instead of theocracy can be proven to work in the Middle-East. THIS is the reason we are staying the course in Iraq, and the reason we have allowed a few thousand American troops to die over there. There is an important reason to make Democracy work, but the short-sighted see only those troop numbers on the evening news, and do not consider the long-term benefits of a stable Democratic Iraq.
The ONLY way to win this battle is to get them to see that there is a better way. TALKING is not going to do that.
[ edited by replaymedia on Jan 1, 2006 03:39 PM ]
posted on January 1, 2006 03:44:05 PM new
Thank you replaymedia.
Well said....imo, especially the part about 'thinking long range' rather than thinking if we just pull out...everything will go smoothly or trusting that their intentions towards us are to be taken as honorable.
That's just not going to happen. We see that now with N. Korea. The clinton administration was bribing them to NOT produce NW...and they were anyway. I don't see that being any different if we try to 'talk it out' with Iran.
They too then should have us 'bribing' them to not use their weapons on us or another country? I don't want to see them have that power at any time. I sincerely hope they NEVER do.
posted on January 1, 2006 03:48:58 PM newNot too funny, imo, profe...Especially since you appear to be ignoring...
beyond what I posted above Linda, you know nothing about what I'm ignoring or not ignoring. What a silly thing to say. Any presumption you make about my opinions in this matter beyond what I've already said you are plainly and simply pulling out of your butt.
Colin said:
I'm sick of this Middle East crap and the only way out of it is to remove the offending regions, Lock stock and towelhead.
So then we're pretty much in agreement I guess.
then he said:
I wonder if any of the cowardly bast*rd nations that didn't back us last time will this time. I know Francis won't and from your statement I guess Mexico won't either.
First of all, I don't know any Francis, so I wouldn't know about him one way or the other. Secondly, you figure I and I alone somehow speak for the entire country of Mexico? ME a born-here U.S. Citizen??
I had no idea my opinion carried so much weight around these parts.
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
posted on January 1, 2006 04:01:08 PM new
Pulling it out of MY butt profe? And you would know that how?
Hitting the whisky bottle a little too much are you?
The statement you made DID NOT address any other country than ours.
You want to NOW admit that other countries see this issue the same way the US does? Or you just want to continue putting it all on ONLY our country?
Which it's not.
"It's our job to poe-lease the world. We can't let these dishtowel headed non-believers get ahold of the bomb. We need to carpet bomb that pissant heathen country into submission right now and be done with it. God is on our side. Remember, he told the president to go to the middle east in the first place.
---------------
then I said: Not too funny, imo, profe.
Especially since you appear to be ignoring how many OTHER countries don't want to see Iran with nuclear weapons either. And those countries have been trying to get Iran to agree to stop.
But, of course, to some it's only the big, bad USA that doesn't want Iran with nuclear weapons.
---------------
then the profe, CAN'T resist starting with the garbage....
quotes me as saying: Not too funny, imo, profe...Especially since you appear to be ignoring...
he responds:
beyond what I posted above Linda, you know nothing about what I'm ignoring or not ignoring. What a silly thing to say. Any presumption you make about my opinions in this matter beyond what I've already said you are plainly and simply pulling out of your butt. -------
Yes, easy way to avoid answering the issue directly....don't address it at all....start with the insults. typical leftie.
AND TO ALL LEFTIES WHO WANT TO ACTUALLY NOTICE....who starts with the garbage....it's a leftie AGAIN.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 1, 2006 04:04 PM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 1, 2006 04:07 PM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 1, 2006 04:11 PM ]
posted on January 1, 2006 05:22:42 PM newYou want to NOW admit that other countries see this issue the same way the US does? Or you just want to continue putting it all on ONLY our country?
Um...your original post asked what the U.S. should do about it. I answered that. Then you accused me of ignoring things. I guess if I don't directly address something, it means I'm ignoring it, right?
My statement that you're pulling stuff out of your butt was a perhaps too colorful way to say you're making up anything you assume about my opinions in this matter beyond what I've actually said, and I'll stand by that. It wasn't intended to insult you. Anything you care to think about my opinions in this matter beyond what I've already said, are blind assumptions on your part, and while you're most assuredly welcome to make them, they are not valid beyond your own imagination.
Like I said before, in answer to your original question which did not take the opinions or desires of other countries into account, but asked only what the U.S. ought to do, I'll say it again for you:
It's our job to poe-lease the world. We can't let these dishtowel headed non-believers get ahold of the bomb. We need to carpet bomb that pissant heathen country into submission right now and be done with it. God is on our side. Remember, he told the president to go to the middle east in the first place.
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
They're terrorists cheryl, who are fighting AGAINST a FREE society in Iraq. But I understand way too many of you here on the left thing saddam should have been left to 'keep the people under HIS rule'. Being the nice guy that he is. 
