America is waiting for an opportunity to go to war with Iran to destroy their nukes capabilities, whatever little that is there. A quick strike and victory war would show Obama as a capable leader and divert attention away from the lousy job he has done at home. This may win him the election. Iran, don't be so stupid to walk into this trap. But then again, they may be that dumb. Somehow, I've seen this picture before.
Great idea, we went into Iraq and did so well, right? I think Iran would show to be a much stronger enemy than the depleted Iraq. If it took us nearly 10 years to not win in Iraq, what is the plan for Iran? Gotta keep the chicken hawks settled down for a while. A war with Iran is just stupid. c
Absolutely. So just trust the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world when the stakes are so high? They've been helping out with IEDs to kill our people in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, so why not pass off a nuclear weapon or material for a bunch of dirty bombs?
Given, Iran is a bad place. Their leader is a nut case. As far as being the largest state sponsor of terrorism sounds a bit like Saddam and his WMD's. Just because someone, especially the politicians, says something over and over doesn't make it gospel. I am not defending Iran, I am just not sure that we should just make up reasons to attack them. Didn't work too well before, could be earth shattering this time. c
I can understand that you are an anti-intellectual, but even you may agree this is useful thinking "It is the fundamental duty of the citizen to resist and to restrain the violence of the state. Those who choose to disregard this responsibility can justly be accused of complicity in war crimes, which is itself designated as âa crime under international lawâ in the principles of the Charter of Nuremberg."
I'm glad you brought up Iraq. Just because "Saddam and his WMD's" was a huge mistake it doesn't mean we can summarily dismiss every threat thereafter and assume it's also bogus. Iran and Iraq are separate issues. Ron Paul's misrepresented the IAEA Report which concluded in part: The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/2011/IAEA-Nov-2011-Report-Iran.pdf So I think we should objectively assess it within the framework of the Powell Doctrine and if it meets all the tests for military action, put it up for a vote in Congress.
I can agree with much of what you and Dr. Paul say in this regard. It's just worrisome when we are talking about a much more advanced country than the Sunni/Shiite civil war in Iraq. And, something else that bothers me is when they say, when speaking about missiles in Venezuela, they say these missiles could have nuclear warheads added to them. Well, all or almost all, missiles can have all sorts of devices added to them. Maybe a satellite, maybe a nuke. Missiles are just messengers, mostly bad of course, but no reason to always make for the worst possible case. c
I must sound like a broken record with the number of times I've said this lately but check out the Powell Doctrine. It's a simple list of no-nonsense tests and BTW military action is only the last resort and I don't think we've exhausting all other means yet by any stretch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine
I was gonna ask him if he thinks Chomsky is wrong about his central argument, that the US is an imperial nation and its foreign policy is best understood, from a logic perspective, if one keeps that in mind.
We bombed Iraq for years during the 10 years of sanctions on that country, resulting in tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths (and that's the conservative estimate). In backdoor negotiations the Iraqis agreed to everything the U.S. wanted in return for ending the sanctions -- complete, unrestricted weapons inspections, oil concessions, and even steps towards democracy. The neocons ignored all this because they wanted war no matter what. *After* Qaddafi ended his nuclear program and took other steps to appease the Western nations we supported rebels advocating sharia law in a civil war against him. They brutally murdered the former dictator. Why would anybody trust us? What matters is not whether you regard the embargo on Iranian oil exports to be an act of war. What matters is whether the Iranians do. And they do: http://www.theatlantic.com/national...paul-vindicated-on-iran-unfortunately/250955/