Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People should be free to choose what is best for themselves as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I created this blog to discuss issues I have with big government, liberal media,and to talk about my support for capitalism and the Iraq War.
14 comments:
If we weren't in Iraq, we could do it ourselves. But alas...
Damn, you said it first again.
But yeah, there are consequences to squandering your military power and international good-will. Enjoy.
Also it may be worth pointing out that going around assasinating every crackpot on the global stage may not serve to have the stabilizing effect you would imagine.
So neither of you have an answer then? It is like I am watching the democratic debate.
Let's throw it back on you then Diatribe. Do you have an answer? What would you suggest we, or the world, do?
I suppose my answer would be the US could have done it yesterday if we weren't in Iraq. When our military is stretched as thin as it is right now (remember that article I emailed you the other day about the military's (all branches) stop loss policy?) we can't go after every legitimate threat to peace and stability.
It looks as though Darwin's answer (and I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth here) is maybe it's not up to us to decide. Maybe the countries in that region need to be the ones concerned.
And don't you think Israel is kind of used to that by now? In my mind, Israel is kind of like a hornets nest just minding it's own business until some asshole kid comes and hits it with a stick. Once that happens all the hornets get pissed and go rip shit up. Ahmidinejad is just pandering with those words... or does he actually have a weapon of mass destruction. Man, if we could only go in there ourselves and find out...
By the way, the republicans did a bunch of talking without saying anything either at their debate.
Sorry, I should have written...
"When our military is stretched as thin as it is right now (remember that article I emailed you the other day about the military's (all branches) stop loss policy?) we can't go after every legitimate threat to peace and stability when we go after every illegitimate threat like Saddam."
When we feel Iran is getting too close (months/weeks) to making a bomb and they refuse to stop (which they have been), we tell them their nuclear facilities will be bombed. We give them a deadline that it needs to end and for access to make sure it has stopped. If they do not comply then we flat out destroy those facilities. If all they want is Nuclear Power, fine, let us run it for you (or some international group). If all you want is the ability to power up buildings and houses then you will not have issues with someone running the nuclear plant. It would be great if Europe and other countries signed up for this deal, but if they do not want to then we do it ourselves.
Also we need more CIA guys inside Iran getting the people of that country to overthrow their leader. I feel he is a very unpopular guy and with a little push from us we might be able to get that done.
And yes I heard the story that we are doing that (by the way, no way in hell that story should have been published). Why do people leak stories like that to the media? I do not care if you do not like the plan - you just put those CIA agents lives is jeapordy. And whoever reported it is just as guilty. THe americans being arrested in Iran right now is on those people hands in my opinion. Telling the enemy the plan so they can plan for it is suicide.
On a side note - yes the debates on both sides say a lot of nothing. But when it comes to war and national security the Republicans do say a lot more. The democrats are afraid to say we bomb Iran. Republicans have little issues saying that. Democrats said last night we need to talk to Iran and Ademidjad? They viewed the problem as we do not talk enough. I view the problem as thier is a crazy guy in charge of a country and his nuclear plans need to be stopped before it is to late. I am not saying we need to assasinate the guy. I just want the means as to which he can hurt tens of thousands of people to be taken away from him.
And whose military do you use? Ours is stuck in Iraq.
You do not think our planes can fly to Iran and drop bombs. What are they out of the way or something?
You don't think it's a little more complicated than just dropping a few bombs?
Do blow up a nuclear plant? No. PUnch in the cordinates and let it rip. Hell we do not even need planes to do it. We can fire missiles off battleships we have in the gulf. If that dont work then we use our stealth fighters. What is the problem here?
You needed to get Bush on the phone 5 years ago then. It would have been much easier and much, much less bloodier for us to just lob missiles into Iraq then to invade.
Why did Bush decide to invade Iraq then if it's so easy to drop some bombs. And don't give me that crap about a regime change because the original stated purpose for the Iraq war was to rid Saddam of his WMD's. Regime change was a convenient way for Bush to save face when, surprise!, there weren't any WMD's.
Nuclear Ambition seems genuinely worried about Iran and over extended our military. As a solution to Iran I’m sure he would strongly favor initiating a draft.
Unlike Nuclear Ambition, I don’t think a draft is the solution to the problem. I think European Nations in conjunction with Israel should invade Iran. Failing that, the US should bomb the hell out of Iran facilities repeatedly until there enough of our army in Iraq free to invade Iran.
I agree with Darwin, its not just enough to assassinate, we have to invade and force democracy on destabilized countries. He is wise for realizing that.
Thats why he fully supported the invasion of Iraq and eagerly looks forward to the demise of the regimes in Iran and North Korea by invasion.
Sophist, I must have missed the part where I advocated for a draft. Worried about Iran? Not really. Worried about overextending our military? Absolutely.
I will say that I agree with most of this statement. "I think European Nations in conjunction with Israel should invade Iran." I'm not sure I'd want Israel in on the fun because that would automatically invite countries like Syria to join the party and we'd be looking at WWIII which I don't think is a good thing.
But if you got any connections in Europe, maybe you could get W. on the phone too and hook us up.
Post a Comment