Israel ready to strike
Israel is ready to strike....what do u guys think?
Trending Content
| +34 | ADHD ! | 19 | 5h | |
| +34 | Non-Competes Banned | 43 | 8h | |
| +30 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 4d | |
| +20 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 4d | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 2d | ||
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 4d | |
| +15 | Can someone justify why is million written mm or MM? | 13 | 11h | |
| +15 | Secretive vs Universal Prestige? | 8 | 2h | |
| +9 | Winning - The Hindsight Insight We Actually Need | 1 | 2d | |
| +9 | Breaking: Apple Unveils Official Dates for Highly-Anticipated 2024 Event! | 0 | 3d |
Career Resources
Seems to me like the diplomats are slowly fueling the fire themselves...I still don't get the notion of why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons to protect itself (you don't need them for protection though) and Iran is not. A smart solution (if the world were fair) would be to ask Israel to stop its nuclear program and then pressure Iran to do the same and allow the international community strict monitoring of its facilities. Nuclear weapons are there to flex muscles, which i bet will eventually lead to war. I understand Iran is supposedly our enemy, but really they are no threat to us and I believe that if Israel had no nuclear weapons to flex their muscles, Iran would have less incentive to have them as well.
Moral equivalence, the kind of stuff you only hear from a moron. Iran has threatened to wipe Israel of the planet- it is led by religious fanatics. Israel acquiring nuclear weapons = Iran? What world do you live in?
In case you haven't been reading the news lately - so is Israel.
Yes, every country in the world deserves to be treated equally! Because all countries, after all, behave the same. Duh! It's so simple!
All US citizens should be treated the same. If you violently threaten someone, that someone can't ask for a restraining order...because that'd be treating someone unfairly.
Countries like Iran are mature and reasonable participants in the world community exactly like every other country. They don't sponsor terrorism, either, so that's good. It's not fair that they should be treated or viewed differently JUST because of ties to Hezbollah, Hamas.
I think we should reason with the Iranian government. It sympathizes with people that blow themselves up, but I'm sure Iran will come to its senses at some point.
And Israel is not a member of the non-proliferation treaty either.
Israel is the #1 recipient of US aid closely followed by Egypt. Both countries hate one another and use the money to purchase weapons = US arming enemies.
Maybe because if Israel had no nukes then all of the psycho leaders in the Middle East would get together and destroy it. How can you say Iran is no threat to us if they had nukes? Their leaders have a screw loose. Not something I want to leave to chance.
israel doesn't have oil = on the same side as us
BeastMode & yl715,
Admenajad's comments about Israel have been exaggerated and misinterpreted (he said so himself). Just google the subject and you'll see subjective interpretations of the imperfect translation. Even so if I were to say that the Giants were going to kill the Packers today I obviously don't mean it in the literal sense.
Pakistan has threatened to nuke India.
For these latter points I don't see the US military getting too engaged in those matters. Otherwise we should've invaded Pakistan, North Korea or China by now right?
Iran is not the aggressor, the US is. In 1953 the US CIA helped overthrow a DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of Iran and installed a fundamental religious, military government, authoritarian Shah. Half a century later we have blowback. Our CIA also put Saddam Hussein in power and even helped Osama bin Laden during Afghanistan's war with the Soviet Union. What has that achieved? Let's stop meddling in the middle east.
The US operates under the guise of "democracy spreading" to pursue it's own imperialist interests in the middle east.
Of course not. The terrorists they support are.
Which ones?
With regards to Hezbollah even American Congressmen can't agree whether it is a terrorist organization or a resistance movement. Hezbollah actually condemned 9/11 and they deny any attacks. Even so let's say Iran funds Hezbollah... what's so different w/ our CIA going into other countries and f*king with their sovereign affairs? Both countries are meddling outside their jurisdiction right?
Talking about terrorists, 15 out of the 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden is Saudi too. I see more of a Saudi link with terrorism than I do with Iran and yet we are buddies with the Saudis.
This is a finance site and examining world events and going through the finer points of recent history expand our understanding of the world in which we live. This is vital in finance and any other international industry. But gumming up every conversation with socialist propaganda or stupid rebelliousness is a waste of everyone's time. Trust me, I once questioned these very same issues, so I do 'get it'. But the second you make an honest effort to learn the full story, you will realize that world events are much more nuanced and US motivations are much more honorable than your current, juvenile understanding of global power politics suggests. Open your eyes, hit the books, and take a seat son.
Let's simplify: SHUT THE FUCK UP. You don't know what you're talking about.Thumb up.
Great point. I totally forget that Iran was playing Israel this weekend for the championship game. Now it TOTALLY makes sense and seems completely harmless!! #sarcasm
P.S. This is another reason I'm against voting for Ron Paul...^^these are the fucking idiots I would be associating myself with. #notsarcasm
Regards
Actually every empire does that: talking hypocritically while packing pies into their pockets. The problem is: Do you guys want US to be an "imperium" or not?
I think Iran isn't as crazy as some of the pols make it out to be. I would rather them not have a nuke, but I see why they want one. It is 100% assurance that they will not be invaded. Libya- gone, Iraq- gone, but the U.S.S.R...never actually attacked. It would probably be wiser to remove all nukes from Israel and have the U.S. say "This is our ally, if you attack her, we will come at you with our full force". But having Israel armed with a ton of nukes is a huge spark for that area- even though I like Netanyahu, I think that Iranians see Netanyahu as we see Ahmadinejad. Right now we have the yoke on Israel- so they won't do anything rash- but the U.S. pulls back...watch out!
The way I see it, the Middle East is basically the Balkans pre-World War 1. It is an incomprehensible web of social, ethnic, and political divides. We cannot play referee indefinitely. There will be an inciting incident that results in a large scale conflict, either by a state or non-state actor.
The best we can do, from the perspective of self-interest, is stay out. Maybe funnel resources to Israel and other democratic interests, but otherwise stay out. If we get involved in any international conflict over there, the US will be the target of any resentment for decades to come.
Good analysis.
As I wrote earlier we've already been involved for half a century... and now we have blowback (i.e. 9/11)... hostility with some countries.
Let's not forget that we overthrew Iran's democratic government and installed the Shah, we helped Saddam Hussein rise to power and we funded Osama bin Laden during the Soviet Union-Afghan war. Result = blowback.
Diplomacy/Trade > War/Violence/Manipulation/Embargoes
If you don't make wars/manipulate other countries, you can never be a true empire. And how will that affect the daily life of US citizens?
we should definitely stop meddling.
when they run out of oil. srs.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/219668/israels-stock-exchange-natio…
Israeli stock exchange (website) hacked by Pro-Palestinian group. Must be cheaper to hack than building bombs with the prices in commodities these days. Haha.
^ Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Why don't you google the founding fathers and their views on foreign policy and throw away those neo-con books.
I'm against the neocons (or neoliberals, if you're a European), but I'm not one of the isolationist morons: there are many views in between imperialist and isolationist and you seem to not comprehend that. Some of the founding fathers warned against unncessary foreign entanglements, but were not isolationists and had a lot of help from other countries during the War of Independance. Other founding fathers were in favor of foreign alliances, but were selective about who we entered into agreements with, so it's not always so cut and dry.
I will agree that the US has been forced to repeat history. WWII and the second Gulf engangement are perfect examples of going back and being more thorough...if recent history's trend of repeating history is any indication, Iran is about due for a coup de etat....
War should be declared only if the enemy is a threat to us. Remove the propaganda and Iran is no threat.
What have we gained from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Several thousand lost American lives, ~4 trillion of wasted dollars and a generation of Muslims who will grow up anti-American and may resort to radicalism.
Warmongering is anti-American as it only serves a few elites (military-industrial complex). Let's bring the troops home from these pointless conflicts as its not worth American lives to fight other countries' battles. I wonder why the Ron Paul presidential campaign is the biggest recipient of US troop donation money.
With regards to Israel, Netanyahu himself told America to f*ck off with their peace brokering efforts. I wonder whether Israel and the Muslim-world would actually achieve peace if the US became less involved.
Seriously though, you said this is a finance site... what's the ROR for these wars? What are we gaining from them? All I see is lost lives, increased deficits, and a more dangerous world in the future.
We might as well bomb Iran now because once they get a nuke we wont be able to.
couldn't have said it better myself. apparently iran is thinking exactly the same thing.
Earning season and all, give defense stocks a little boost.
HAL leaps?
If there's an option's guru here how do the premiums look on HAL's long-term options relative to similar industry names w/ close betas but whose business model is less dependent on war profiteering?
oil
The only reason Israel is willing to strike is because of U.S support take that away and Israel might not even be a State. Israel should strike if Iran first strikes not vice versa. If Israel has our military support then it should be able to intercept a nuke sent my Iran.
UFOinsider,
How is this anti-American:
Let's bring the troops home and stop fighting other people's battles. F*ck the Middle East... American lives are too precious for that. The countries we invaded were NEVER a threat to us. You don't have to fight terrorism by occupying a nation for almost a decade. Let's protect our borders on domestic soil rather than in other continents.
Cut-off most foreign aid. We have thousands of diplomats in this country... Diplomacy > Violence. You can think of us as liberators, but locals will think of us as occupiers = blowback.... future consequences.
Seriously stop with the anti-American claim rhetoric. I'm not trying to see Americans fight to protect other nations or elitist, war profiteering, interests.
This isn't me calling you out or anything, but based on your arguments here, would you support america going to war in europe (as per 1942) on the same argument? Germany was never a threat to the US, but I doubt many of you would stand against this.
My principle for intervention is based on if it were me in their shoes, what would you want to happen? If some crackpot with a nuke was next door to me, i'd be very concerned. Israel's nukes will never be used. If they ever are, it's position will become untenable, and it would result in a worldwide backlash (read sentiment) against the jewish population akin to what the Germans suffered post 1945. They are a guarantee that they will not be wiped off the map. in my mind they should dispose of them but keep it discreet so everyone believes they still have them, with no risk of turning deserts into glass.
No, he wouldn't intervene...or now, in hindsight, he will probably say 'yes'.
He is the type of person who stands ideally by while two females savagely beat a transgender person and watch them kick this person in the head until the convulsions begin. Why intervene? These girls don't pose a threat to him.
Wrong, they do pose a threat. They pose a threat to the overall safety of your community because acts as those embolden people to , they pose a threat to society with degenerative behavior...but people like mb666 don't have the ability to reason and think through logical progressions. They don't see that most armed robbers start off by stealing and shoplifting then eventually 'graduate' to high crimes like breaking and entering and stealing cars. No, the 14 year old kid selling stereos and navigation devices out of cars doesn't pose a threat to you today, but he will 2 years from now when he's managed to acquire a gun and you happen to stop at a red light near his neighborhood.
And trazer, what benefit is there to secretly getting rid of nuclear weapons? People will still hate you because they think you still have them but now you no longer hold the ultimate 'trump card'.
Regards
Well Germany actually invaded neighboring countries, including our allies. Who has Iran invaded/attacked? We were also attacked by Japan, an ally of Germany. We intervened only after something happened.
If Iran actually invaded someone, whether Israel or some other country, then we can intervene. But to intervene under the pretext that Iran may attack someone is absurd. Preemptive strikes, such as in Iraq, can be based on lies... and we haven't gained anything from the Iraq War.
As it stands there's too many grey areas about Iran. 1) perhaps they're not even building nuclear weapons but rather nuclear power reactors, 2) even if they obtained nuclear weapons, such weapons are defensive weapons = power to tell someone to don't f* with us, and lastly 3) the comments about Israel have probably been taken way out of context.
Position: non-interventionist... If anything diplomacy first > military action second.
Iran hasn't done anything to threaten us or our allies and yet we have itchy trigger fingers. Look, just like Iraq, the neo-cons have wanted to invade Iran for several decades. Iran's enrichment of uranium to make nukes = Saddam's yellowcake from Africa propaganda.
A war with Iran wouldn't accomplish anything besides enriching the war-profiteers. The world would become more dangerous, our deficits would grow, and it would be another step towards America's demise. Empire's fall when they become too outstretched. The US needs to preserve itself and stop trying to police the world because it doesn't work and it cannot afford to do so.
mb666, do you believe the Masons control the world?
Does anyone speak Persian? Curious as to whether or not this is properly translated...
Regards
Yes, I speak it, and yes it is generally translated correctly. But 'Death to Israel' isn't the only chants coming from Persians whether Pro-Israel or Anti-Israel or Pro-King or Anti-King. There's been Death to America, Death to Khomieni, Death to Saddam, Death to Khamieni, Death to Pahlavi (the former King), and Death to whatever else you can imagine.
And a lot of insults in Persian languages, even the ones that are very "minor", involve death.
Khavareh Marget ([I await] the news of your death) Khak to Saret (sand in your head) - implies you're buried Sareh Ghrabet (at your tombstone) and the list goes on....ok maybe a little more than you asked for but yeah might give you some contextual understanding.
And by the way, I always saddens me when it people get shocked that Iran and Israel have no true basis of being enemies. They share the same enemies (the Arabs) and historically they have been friends and allies. There is a large population of Persian Jews (although many of them left after the Islamic Revolution). Most Persians aren't religious, while the official religion is Islam, a huge population would convert or officially claim another religion (Zoroastrianism) as their official religion if it was not illegal to convert from Islam (apostasy).
As outlandish as it sounds, Iran and Israel should ally up and take over the Middle East and then split it down the middle. Then Israel has some oil territories and Iran doesn't have to worry about Saudi's telling the world to 'cut off the head of the snake' .
Those of you who believe we should invade Iran because they are making nukes as "preemptive strike"- You do realize that it will only fuel muslims to join groups terrorist groups and plan attacks on U.S soil. Do we really want that? I am sure we could stop most terrorist attacks that would be carried out in the U.S but not all. Iran isn't really a threat they don't have the military power or the allies we have...If N.K wasn't dumb enough to attack S.K, I don't think Iran is to attack Israel. Sponsoring terrorism is for another debit, I am sure they are many countries other than Iran that sponsor terrorism and what invade them as well?
I don't think too many people are advocating that we invade Iran and put troops on the ground. Our Air Force and Navy have sufficient strike capabilities from air and sea.
I was about to get mad, but then I realized that I should be happy that most of my friends didn't get blown up by a terrorist attack. After all, it could have been all of them. As long as we can stop most of them, I guess a C+ isn't that bad of a grade.
The NK/SK situation is much different. NK would be hard pressed to put up any sort of invasion force because the vast majority of their people are malnourished, short and underweight...and that's only compared to their neighbors across the DMZ.
Regards
Regardless if N.K has malnourished troops/citizen it still has nukes that it can easily bomb S.K... So no, I don't think Iran is stupid enough too strike. But none of you care to see that if we were strike Iran nuclear facility, it will anger muslims and give them more reasons to attack us..
The neo-cons on this site fail to realize that a lot of the Muslim's world hostility to the United States is the result of our country's foreign policy for the past half century.
UFO and his sidekick CPH fail to see the long-term blowback implications from our foreign policy. With their myopic views they actually think that such conflict based off nothing is best for the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Great, glad you think they are justified in their actions. I suppose that it's okay for Muslims to slaughter Christians on a near daily basis as well...since the Christian have surely 'wronged' them in the past?
Regards
You don't want to invade Iran, just commit an act of war. Terrific! You think they are going to sit there idly and take more of that from the US? You honestly are so stupid and naive that you believe that isn't going to INCREASE their funding for extremists and may even outright support organizations that commit terrorist attacks against the US? Do you honestly believe that is a smart idea? If these people are as dangerous as you believe, attacking them when it is not absolutely necessary and a matter of survival, you are out of your mind. If they are not that dangerous, then it isn't worth the hundreds of millions / billions that will be spent.
Not to mention, you've failed to identify Iran ever attacking anybody and only marginal affiliation with terrorist organizations (even Republican NeoCons don't agree on Hezbollah, so give it up). You cannot even accept that it was the US that first caused the problems in our relationship with Iran! I mean JFC, get a clue.
Well, I can tell you it's very unlikely they are going to get on ships and sail to America to try and invade us...so that isn't a huge concern.
I've said before that I don't think invading them is the right move and the term "attacking" is very subjective. I'm not blatantly advocating sending a thousand missiles in there but I'm not entirely against it if necessary. There are many things we can do, covertly to undermine their nuclear aspirations...some have been done, others could be implemented. The problem with your way of thinking is, Iran having a nuke isn't a problem until it's a problem. Instead of launching viruses and killing their scientist, you want to wait until they have developed the warhead and have either loaded it up on a missile and the fucking thing is fired up on the launch pad or after it has managed to wander out of the country. That's too late. Sorry you disagree.
How are they going to...
...if they only have that "marginal affiliation" you you mentioned above?
As for your proof...it's hard to find concrete evidence of the terror affiliation. It's almost as if these countries don't want everyone to know about or something!!
In my mind the people who know most about this situation are backing the accusations. Who am I to question Congressman and the CIA?
http://americasforum.com/content/capitol-hill-testimony-focuses-venezue…
Also, I never said that the US had nothing to do with the dysfunctional relationship that exists at this point in time. I merely pointed out that we aren't the only ones they hate. They hate Israelis and apparently many westerners and Christians. Are you saying they are justified in their killing of civilians because they are mad?
Regards
What evidence do you have that they are killing civilians? You realize American forces have killed tens of thousands of civilians in these countries over the last decade, correct? Should American officials be charged for war crimes?
Hating Israelis, while not my personal MO, is not an unreasonable feeling for many in the area. They have not acted on their hatred anymore than the Israelis have and, until they do, we need to keep our nose out of it. It is absolutely none of our business and until they attack us or an ally, it shouldn't be.
If your argument is that they hate Christians (who the fuck is they? the entire country?), you must have forgot about the sharp rise in hate crimes against Muslims in the US post-9/11 and the continued racism many face.
cphbravo96, will you do us all a favor and personally do some research? I'll point you in the right direction with this video.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/n7zwWqMPqkU
From there, research the origins and history of the neoconservative movement. Pay close attention to the names and organizations mentioned in the video I linked to. Read their policy papers from the 1990s and leading up to the Iraq War.
As of now, you're a neoconservative and you likely have no idea what that even means.
Unless someone is being utterly lazy, which cph is not, don't simply demand they go do extensive research and leave it at that - rather, prove them wrong by using what you've already researched. If you're sooooo concerned they "get it right" show them their ignorance of the facts and logical fallacies (not saying ignorance applies to anyone here - I'm not taking sides on the issues in saying this).
How did you manage to post that video with your tin foil hat on? The more I hear about Ron Paul the less I like him. While I appreciate some of his libertarian views, I think he takes it too far. You can't govern a society filled with good and bad people by not governing at all. In some cases the federal government has to draw a line and choose which direction we head in as a nation. Libertarian ideals don't always get that done.
I can read about the neoconservative movement all you want, but it doesn't really impact the way I think. I wouldn't call myself a neoconservative but I suppose that would be better than being a closeted liberal throwing around socialist terms.
Regards
Look at the power that the mafia has amassed in Italy due to the crisis there. Nature abhorrs a power vaccuum. Some rules / agencies definitely need to be cut / pared down, but gutting the power structure will just open the door to opportunists who we don't elect, and the default is some type of totalitarian arrangement.
Remember that the vast majority of communists sell themselves in polite company as "anarchists / government minimalists / anarcho-syndicalists" aka "smash the system (so we can take over)".
That ad hominem attack is really pathetic and irrelevant.
Understood. He isn't advocating anarchy. His position is to follow the rule of law and the legislative process. As someone who served and took an oath to defend the Constitution, why wouldn't you respect the only politician in recent history who has done the same? Not adhering to the Constitution and the rule of law is what creates the environment of lawless you are concerned about.
This is the whole point. The federal government has chosen a direction. Unfortunately, the direction is perpetual war, deficit financing, a world-historic debt crisis, corporate welfare and trillion dollar bailouts, unfunded entitlements, and growing regulations/bureaucracy. Ron Paul has been on the right side of all these issues for his entire career. His rivals have been on the wrong side.
It will have a major impact on the way you think. Understanding neoconservatism, it's players, media outlets, and organizations is the most important task for anyone who desires limited Constitutional government.
See. This is exactly why you need to look into this. You're [unknowingly] supporting a movement deeply influenced by radical communist agitators which has adapted the socialist Woodrow Wilson's foreign policy of "making the world safe for democracy" to benefit special interest groups at a detriment to the stability of our country. The neoconservative movement is profoundly destructive and antithetical to American's traditional Jeffersonian Republicanism.
US needs to keep its hands clean. The Iranian nuke situation is an issue between IRAN and ISRAEL. We will not support an attack on Iran. We will not coordinate with Israel on an attack. If they want to talk to us, our military generals and diplomats will cover their ears and shout "NOT TODAY!".
If Iraq or Jordan want to use SAMs against Israeli bombers, that is their prerogrative.
This is none of our business, none of our concern, and we need to stay out of Israel's and Iran's way.
I thought neoconservativism would go away with the Iraq debacle. Apparently not.
-
Guys, let's not kill each other over this. I think a lot of traditional conservatives would look at neocons like a quiet fundamentalist Baptist looks at Benny Hinn or Pat Robertson, but the Baptists don't call Hinn an atheist apostate either. They just quietly grit their teeth and say he doesn't really represent Christianity.
I think it's pretty darned clear that we've learned our lessons over the past decade.
-It's very cheap to have a large military that does nothing; it's very expensive to send that same military into battle. -Wars should only be waged AFTER we're attacked. Or at least with the support of strategically-chosen allies after THEY'VE been attacked. -Conservatives need to oppose transfers of taxpayer wealth to corporations in the form of subsidies just as much as they oppose welfare. -Capitalism may be the right thing to do, but it won't survive unless we can convince the average individual that it gives them MORE freedom and opportunities.
-
But for the sake of conservativism, we need to handle it with class. They don't claim to be socialists, but they have the foreign policy and cynicism and big government ideals of liberals. Let's just say it's not a good fit and send them back to the Democratic party.
Then we have to work on picking back up the blue-dog Dems and getting the conservative coalition back together.
I agree with you that neoconservatives are more dangerous to the country than Democrats are. Liberals may not be that bright or sane, but outside a couple of business dems (Frank Lautenberg is the perfect example), they're not all that cynical. People take us more seriously when we stick to our principals, talk about what conservativism really stands for and why we need help cleaning up the Republican Party from Independents and maybe even a few of the smarter Democrats.
Kick the neocons out, get the blue dogs and the social liberals back in, and we can start to make it the party of political reform and economic progress vs the party of unions and wars. Just like it was for most of the 20th century.
I think the hard part for a lot of Americans is realizing that there's a multitude of stories going on in every region, and that reality is just to far removed from the narrowly focused two party debate here. This is why I'm an independant.
The European and classical philisophy word "liberal" has been turned into a pariah by conservatives in this country, but the original term is "liberal democracy" or "democratically elected republicanism" (the people choose from the princes). Either way, both liberal and libertarian contain the root latin word liber, or 'to be free', so I guess it all works out to the same end even if people are coming from different places.As for true conservatives...all that the word means is that you do what your great grandparents did and are hostile to any innovations in technology and thought (until they work for you, of course). Anyone under 50 who's a hardened conservative should probably see a psychologist or graduate third grade. American conservatism is a different creature from European conservatism because our country is rooted in the Constitution, so somehow it works well in America. But keep in mind that 'conservative' in most places on earth really means going back to partriarchal tribalism and the ways of life originating in that mindset...basically, the problem with the world today.
Don't mind me, the PATH broke down and I'm stuck in the station, I had to pass the time somehow.
Rumor is someone was walking on the track.
Damn, I miss driving to work.
What WMDs were found in Iraq? Please post the evidence.
Just conduct a Google search, it's all there for your eyes. I'm not going to do the research for you because it's a well known fact that they were, it's a topic that has been discussed at length online and the evidence shouldn't be difficult to find...but since you haven't believed it yet, I doubt you will start believing it now...thus I won't put any effort into it for you.
Regards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Small…
On June 21, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released key points from a classified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The report stated that "Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent." However, all are thought to be pre-Gulf War munitions.
Those are your WMDs!?
I am going to enjoy you posting about the non-functional chemical weapons that were from the Gulf War and show how terrible the basis of your argument is.
Oh, so you already know about the WMDs found in Iraq. Glad I didn't do any of the research for you.
Sorry they didn't meet your criteria but they were still there and there were people capable of making them 'functional'.
Regards
lmao you are a fucking joke. How do you feel that you were duped into joining a military that murdered thousands of people over lies?
@UFOInsider
Wouldn't Saddam have been taken out by his own people anyways last spring? He had a much more tenuous hold on power than Quadaffi. Also, a number of reporters in Iraq are saying that the politics and people are moving towards more integration with Iran.
The US's last successful MAJOR military intervention in the Old World was Korea. And that was multilateral under a UN mandate with help from Australia and the UK. We really do best with a strategy of passive multilateralism in Europe, Asia, and Africa.
The lower the "unilateral intervention" coefficient (or at least the higher the "we risk getting invaded and having Washington overrun" coefficient), the better we tend to fare in a war.
never talk about religion or politics...
Never get into an argument with Jerome. He takes things too personally.
4400 hostile fire deaths to the US. 110,000 to Iraqi civilians (largely by insurgents).
The revolutionary war cost us a lot more blood than this cost the Iraqis, and most of us agree that it was probably worth it. In terms of the blood, whether it was totally worth it or not is going to hinge on:
1.) (For the 4400 soldiers killed) Whether US soldiers should be fighting and dying for foreigners who didn't even necessarily want us fighting for them (As a libertarian, I don't think so). 2.) Whether the democracy survives in Iraq. 3.) (If so), whether Iraqis see the dictator removal as worth 110,000 lives.
But what I can do is look at the costs and the outcome from a strictly economic perspective. This war will wind up costing us $2 Trillion. It is utterly unsustainable for us to go around invading every country with a dictator that wants WMDs if that winds up being the cost every single time.
+1
Iran would be a repeat of Iraq with possibly even more horrifying statistics.
To the people who support intervention in Iran, is ^ it really worth it to pursue such wars under the pretexts that:
The risk-reward is atrocious. Plus we're trying to get into a war under preemptive conditions.
-
I think some people were convinced Saddam had weapons and they were desperately searching for that evidence. "Overstatement of factuality" is probably the most accurate charge to make here; not lying. This is a classic case of "I know I'm right so I can stretch the evidence a little to prove myself correct."
It's the same mistake by DAs that sometimes gets people wrongfully convicted, but it's not malicious and it only says about half what lying says about someone's character. It just means they're more zealous than they are honest and they are probably ok people to be friends with or even hire for many jobs but not ok people to be DAs or work in intelligence.
I would like to think that assessment is the case, and if so, hopefully we've learned our lessons from Iraq. It was a $2 Trillion Selective Information Mistake.
Let's let Israel handle this. Trust me. They have a whole lot more Farsi-speaking people. They have operatives who look like Iranians. Iran poses a much more existential threat to them than to us. If they want to strike Iran, we are going to put our military in such a situation that we don't have to clear their use of airspace and we have no prior useful tactical information about the attack. Of course we'll breathe a sigh of relief when they destroy the enrichment facility, but we've done enough in the middle-east, and we had nothing to do with that attack.
-
-
if we deployed marines into every arab cemetery to have them take a whiz and torched $3BB a year on the South Lawn we'd still be better off than the status quo relationship with israel.
Agree to an extent, but I would point out that Israel is a democratic country and its neighbors, well, aren't. It doesn't mean they can bomb power plants and airport runways in Beirut, but it doesn't hurt to be on good terms with them.
I have to say, cphbravo and company are getting obliterated in this debate.
Afghanistan and Iraq war led us this far. Now we have the ability to successfully close Iran's borders with the support from Iraqi, Afghanistan and Pakistani government. At this point, does it even make much sense for us to go into full-scale conflict with Iran especially after going through two wars just recently? With the combined efforts from trade sanctions and special operatives equipped with unmanned drones I feel that aggressive behaviors in Iran can be contained. For us to go into another full-scale conflict one after another seems to be unwise as it will only overstretch states' influence in global affairs and further secure the rise of China.
Why can't Iran just stop being a goddamn terrorists and let exxon and other U.S. Companies drill their oil?
At this point I just feel bad for civilians in middle east caught in firefights when the outcome of this conflict wouldn't change their lifestyles anyhow.
Afghanistan and Iraq war led us this far. Now we have the ability to successfully close Iran's borders with the support from Iraqi, Afghanistan and Pakistani government. At this point, does it even make much sense for us to go into full-scale conflict with Iran especially after going through two wars just recently? With the combined efforts from trade sanctions and special operatives equipped with unmanned drones I feel that aggressive behaviors in Iran can be contained. For us to go into another full-scale conflict one after another seems to be unwise as it will only overstretch states' influence in global affairs and further secure the rise of China.
Why can't Iran just stop being a goddamn terrorists and let exxon and other U.S. Companies drill their oil?
At this point I just feel bad for civilians in middle east caught in firefights when the outcome of this conflict wouldn't change their lifestyles anyhow.
Take one step back and all we're seeing is a regional conflict that sits about 7,000 miles away from US shores. This, in theory, should garner no greater attention than the Libyan conflict, which the US washed its hands of, despite the atrocities committed and the general impotence of European military operations.
There are two reasons why this seems to get Americans feeling much more involved.
1) It's nuclear - greater capacity for destruction, though that destruction is isolated to the region.
2) It's Israel.
I suspect 2) is why everyone is getting so worked up. Look, this is either a sovereign country of educated grown-ups with numerous patents held in its borders, a stock market, a growing population through organic and legislative means, etc. You either let them be and take care of themselves, or you annex them entirely as America's 51st State.
This "in-between" circumstance helps no one. Look deep inside and ask yourself why you feel such an emotional attachment to ANOTHER COUNTRY, to the point that you feel a shared sense of destiny.
It's only there because we've made that political choice. It doesn't have to be that way.
Shared religious background + a common enemy that is terrorism.
I mostly agree with you - I'm just sayin.
?
1,000% on point. Nicely done.
What disturbs me more out of some of the super-hawks is a sense that they put Israel's "needs" above what's best for America. I sometimes feel like they view the USA as Israel-West. Trust disgusting.
there are probably more arabs, persians and muslims in general in the US than there are jews. so "common" whatever is not a good argument.
Eum voluptate vitae accusantium nemo necessitatibus voluptatem esse. Porro molestiae eum repellendus similique quis. Aspernatur omnis numquam provident vel nihil. Sed et voluptatem autem qui quam fugiat officiis omnis.
Aut delectus iusto magnam nihil. Reprehenderit et accusamus eligendi consequuntur sit consequatur. Possimus qui atque voluptatem repellendus ab et distinctio dolor. Omnis ut et consequuntur.
Iusto debitis ipsum quo asperiores. Quasi fugit nihil cumque. Placeat quidem dolorem et est modi quia exercitationem maiores. Eveniet ab facere laborum voluptate. Velit tenetur et repudiandae qui ut autem.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Quae recusandae omnis fugiat saepe saepe odit nihil. Consectetur officiis quia aut dolores. Unde ut omnis quasi labore maiores. Optio numquam molestiae commodi consequuntur non eligendi.
Enim ut non vel dolores consequatur aut unde. Quo sapiente non quam. Dolores ut pariatur officia esse aspernatur cum.
Voluptate deserunt exercitationem architecto aut est quia corporis. Ratione cumque at autem est aut. Minus repellat doloribus et vel et dolorem. Voluptas provident voluptatem temporibus labore similique nisi sunt. Enim porro dolorem omnis et. Asperiores maxime autem excepturi libero et est omnis.
Iste aut tempore rem. Vitae enim eligendi natus tenetur et. Blanditiis ab molestiae magni at. Iusto pariatur quisquam id quia facere aut. Maxime reprehenderit ut deleniti sunt molestias. Sunt illo est perspiciatis hic.
Aperiam voluptatibus reprehenderit assumenda magnam vel. Tenetur nostrum nemo molestiae voluptatum quibusdam. Ea perferendis eius laborum et occaecati vel. Debitis neque architecto quaerat accusantium est facilis.
Tempora consequatur ipsam id earum. Doloribus ex eum magnam dolorem vel quaerat. Quia fugit voluptas enim voluptates qui.
Est omnis dolor deserunt natus asperiores aut. Omnis quae dolores delectus placeat. Dolore nihil saepe ea cupiditate autem aliquam enim. Fuga voluptatem omnis aliquid ut eum nulla enim. Perferendis quia non rerum aliquid est.
Sint modi illum molestiae nihil pariatur voluptatibus. Qui aut saepe eveniet ut fugit. Omnis itaque et quo et enim autem voluptatem. Adipisci voluptas deleniti quasi modi sint officiis. Placeat quasi sed laboriosam.
Dolorem libero sit repellat. Architecto vel vero eius. Rerum est perferendis et est ipsum quasi qui. Labore aliquid facilis aliquid dolore odit.
Rerum consequatur dolorum expedita. Soluta sapiente dolor magnam id amet molestiae veniam. Repellendus minus laboriosam commodi ipsa quo sed. Sit soluta impedit dolorem quibusdam.
Inventore inventore voluptatem possimus nesciunt alias non. Molestias qui omnis consequatur id minima vel. Debitis perferendis molestiae voluptatum maxime. Voluptatum aliquid eius suscipit officiis.
Voluptates optio nesciunt ex officiis facilis. Voluptas quis qui nulla magnam harum eum aut unde. Necessitatibus perspiciatis est voluptatem pariatur quasi. Molestiae nihil consequatur est occaecati similique dicta illum quam. Modi et explicabo fugit maxime.