And I ran, I ran so far away, I couldnt get away
Now I want all you fine folks out there in Auroraland to start paying attention, real close attention (especially all you liberals) take notes if you have to because this is going to be an ongoing lesson. Of course Im talking about Iran. I want everyone to notice Europes and the worlds outrage at their nuclear defiance. Study in detail the strong wording that the UN is using in their effort to resolve this diplomatically. Respect and admire Israel's patience in dealing with a country that has called for their total destruction. Listen to the tough talk from your very own Democratic party. Does any of this ring familiar? It should. Replace the N with a Q, and what we are witnessing now is almost identical to Saddams Iraq just a few years back. Iran is going to have to dealt with (unless we have a Dem President), and you know what that means...dealt with by the only country in the world with a sack, thats right the good ole USA.
Now fast forward to a hypothetical but oh so real scenario. After we administer a whoop ass on Iran like Bob Backland throwing down the Boston Crab on the Iron Sheik, lets suppose we dont find any nuclear weapons in Tehran. Lets suppose that an insurgency erupts. Lets suppose that in a time of war, gasp, there are casualties. Will Europe still be with us? The UN? The Democrats? Or will they lose their will and balls yet again, and scapegoat the US for doing what they lack the nerve to do themselves. I want you to remember. Remember that the UN, the World (france doesnt count), and the Dems (b4 they voted against it) all called for the disarming of Iraq , and when the shiite hit the fan turned tail. Will they do it again. I hope not, yet fear so. Remember what they are all saying now about Iran, and dont let them forget when they once again flip flop.
8 comments:
yes, of course you're right donk. they will forget that the psycho running the country is the same guy who held americans hostage in 1980. they will foget that he called for the destruction of Isreal, or for that matter they won't care. If we have a republican president they will say he didn't have a plan to "win the peace" or whatever crap they say. It is sad, but true.
Thanks for the imput YM.
I agree with your assessment bout the strength of both NK and Iran, and in both cases J Carter is personally to blame by abandoning the Shah while President and by "verifying" that NK was not working on attaining nukes while as special "envoy" for Clinton, resulting in hundreds of millions in US aid thereby expediting the DPRK's arms race.
I disagree that we are spread "too thin", a conventional land war is not required or feasible and tact nuke attack would be unneccessary as well. A few dasiy cutters would do the trick in Iran. Perhaps Israel will do the dirty work again.
The difference between the two is that with Iran they have no peers in the region either willing or able to intervene, and once they get nukes they will use them. With NK there is a nuclear deterrence, as they know Russia, US, Japan, SK, Australia et al would annihilate them, Kim may be crazy but he aint stupid.
Iran cannot and will not be allowed to attain nukes. NK fooled Clinton, but they wont dupe Dubya cuz he may be stupid but he aint crazy
Iran isn't asking us if they can obtain nukes...They already have the facilities. It's just a matter of time. As far as we know, they don't already. They didn't build the facilities to manufacture energy as they claim. They have more natural resources in that area then we do...Israel can't help us this time, their plate is as full as our's is...I don't know that we can't take on Iran now either. Why not? Because of the action in Iraq? That could be abandone and Iran is a close commute from there than America. We don't have to bring all the soldiers home. We can use the one's that are right next door. That was the idea when GW spoke about the axis of evil, right?
fly theres no reason to have ground troops in Iran. we just need to take out the nuclear facilities. Also, Isreal can help us, there plate is not full. Iran learned from Iraq in the 80's and built the facilities in seperate area's of the country, plus put many underground so that it would be harder to destroy all of them, but not that hard. a couple of those bunker busters would do the trick no problem. There will be sanctions first, but i don't believe that will do the trick, i predict the bombing will start in the next 6 months.
I don't like the sound of "dead man switch"...We can blow the world up something like 500 times over...but if we let other countries get the capabilities to blow it up 1 time over...well, then we are all in big trouble.
Mouse, now it's iran thats producing the suicide bombers? i thought the Iraqi people didn't want us there?
Anyway, they're already doing everything they can under the radar to disrupt our deal there. If they wanted to F**k with us, they would come out and do it overtly.
What you don't seem to understand, is that Isreal won't allow them to have nuclear weapons. If you don't know that, then i think it's you who needs to get a library card. If we don't stop them, Isreal will. So ask youself this question
What would be worse the U.S. takes out the nuclear facilities in Iran?
or Isreal takes them out?
I'll answer it for you, because i don't want you to have to think or anything
It would be far worse for the region, and the world if Isreal does it.
Either Iran will back down, or we will take care of them. those are the options.
Also, why are you stuck on tactical nuclear weapons? conventional weapons are just fine for what we need to do.
The truth is, we messed up with north korea (clinton/carter) and we can't allow it to happen again. I don't think Bush will allow it, and again, even if he does, Isreal won't.
Yoda,
1. completely destroying the nuclear facilities of Iran won't put them 18-24 months behind, it would END the program. Put it 18-24 years behind. do you think it's that easy to just whip up a nuke? If that was the case, everyone would already have one.
2. the sypathetic states have already sent their "fighters". they don't have legitimate armies. the iranians couldn't even beat saddam. Logistical support? what would that consist of?
"hey habib, when you blow yourself up, try to kill someone other than yourself. ok?"
3. I think you're understating the Isreali situation. They WILL NOT TOLERATE a nuclear Iran. The Iranian president or whatever his title is has already said that Isreal should be destroyed. We know he's a madman. where do you think the first nuke would go?
4. We will not use nuclear weapons against a country that does not threaten us with the same. Its just not going to happen.
Its a shame that you are more concerned with an unearned gloat session than you are with intelligent debate. I soundly and convincingly trounced your first comment which you so chose to ignore and carry on at which point the Rhino resoundingly poked holes in your argument like cheddar into swiss. Its apparent you are either a "college" student or a hallmark card idealogue that only believes in abstracts and your grasp for reality based situations is for naught and historical perspective is book bound. I wish you well sir in your scholastic endeavors, but if you wanna save a few bucks stop by again at the Aurora, where lessons are always to be learned. Class dismissed
Post a Comment