Re: Iran and U.S. Elections

by Aaron Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:11 pm

It's also been the foreign policy of every setting President since Harry Truman recognized Israel in 1948, which is what I told Frank before he started his double speak.

Like it or not, the United States will come to the aid of Israel if needed. The thing is, I don’t think it will be needed in Iran any more then it was in Syria.

by **Stephanie** Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:34 pm

shermangeneral wrote:Well Steph I would like to rush to your defense so we could skip off into the sunset but I cannot.

I believe we are duty bound by treaty to come to the aid of Israel.

An entangling alliance so to speak.

Please provide a link to the Act of Congress or Legislation that binds us to aid Israel. Show me the proof. I'd really like to see it because I don't believe there is anything anywhere that says we must come to the aid of Israel or any other nation. Pretend I'm from Missouri.

by **Stephanie** Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:38 pm

Aaron wrote:It's also been the foreign policy of every setting President since Harry Truman recognized Israel in 1948, which is what I told Frank before he started his double speak.

Like it or not, the United States will come to the aid of Israel if needed. The thing is, I don’t think it will be needed in Iran any more then it was in Syria.

There is a tipping point for everything. I wonder what the tipping point is for the other Muslim nations. How many Muslim nations will they allow Israel to attack? How many strikes before nuclear Pakistan says enough is enough?

How many times do you think other Muslim nations will sit idly by while the US supports, funds, and equips assaults on Arab nations? Where's the tipping point before Saudi Arabia and others decide they don't want to supply the USA with oil for their war machines any more. They can easily sell to somebody else.

I wonder if the powers that be in Israel and Washington are wondering the same thing? I wonder if the dolts even take the time to consider these questions.

by shermangeneral Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:44 pm

Well Steph as I understand Saudi Arabia would not shed any tears if Iran was taken down a notch.

I will see if I can find a link re the treaty.

by shermangeneral Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:16 pm

Oops.

I have been looking Steph and danged if it does not look like you are right.

I dont find any real treaty, just talks about the terms of a treaty, etc.

So I guess I did not know what I was talking about.

I have heard others talk about a treaty and they seemed to know what they were talking about.

So now I have to agree with Aaron it is just our policy since 1948.

by Aaron Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:23 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Aaron wrote:It's also been the foreign policy of every setting President since Harry Truman recognized Israel in 1948, which is what I told Frank before he started his double speak.

Like it or not, the United States will come to the aid of Israel if needed. The thing is, I don’t think it will be needed in Iran any more then it was in Syria.

There is a tipping point for everything. I wonder what the tipping point is for the other Muslim nations. How many Muslim nations will they allow Israel to attack? How many strikes before nuclear Pakistan says enough is enough?

How many times do you think other Muslim nations will sit idly by while the US supports, funds, and equips assaults on Arab nations? Where's the tipping point before Saudi Arabia and others decide they don't want to supply the USA with oil for their war machines any more. They can easily sell to somebody else.

I wonder if the powers that be in Israel and Washington are wondering the same thing? I wonder if the dolts even take the time to consider these questions.

You're assuming Sunni led Muslim nations will come to the aid of Shiite led Muslim nations. I don't believe they would. As Sherm said, there's no love lost between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I think the proof is in the pudding. How many Muslim nations right now are demanding America leave Iraq?

by Aaron Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:56 pm

Somehow I doubt we have a Treaty of Friendship with Iran.

by SamCogar Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:48 am

Randall wrote:You do this every two years: Claim the evil Republicans will launch some crazy war and bamboozle the public and turn them against peace-loving Democrats. There will be no U.S. attack against Iran, Sherm.

And the 1st weekend of August, if not sooner, it will be:

Those evil Republicans are again wanting to take Social Security checks away from the old folks.

.

by SamCogar Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:07 am

Aaron wrote:
I'm confused Jimmy. Didn't all the NEA's last year say that Iran was not striving for Nuclear technology? Someone forgot to tell the IAEA Director General.

"If you do a military strike, it will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West," he predicted.

Very good Aaron, ....... very good. cheers

And that is the same IAEA that claimed Saddam didn't have any WMDs, ...... RIGHT?

.

by Aaron Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:27 am

The very one that Frank has said 371 times knew more about Iraq then anyone else.

So if they're not sure if Iran is working on Nuclear technology or not, then how can we trust what they had to say about Iraq???

by **Stephanie** Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:16 am

shermangeneral wrote:Oops.

I have been looking Steph and danged if it does not look like you are right.

I dont find any real treaty, just talks about the terms of a treaty, etc.

So I guess I did not know what I was talking about.

I have heard others talk about a treaty and they seemed to know what they were talking about.

So now I have to agree with Aaron it is just our policy since 1948.

You know Sherm, it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. I knew there was no treaty, law, resolution etc requiring us to come to Israel's aid. I just needed you to see it for yourself. My telling you so would never be good enough.

by shermangeneral Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:26 am

Well Steph my wife tells me that my memory is improving so much that I can now remember things that never even happened.

So I guess this is one of those times.

btw are you psychologizing me?

by **Stephanie** Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:06 am

No....but it is pretty much impossible to prove a negative. People must learn those things for themselves.

by **SheikBen** Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:23 pm

So would you say that the argument that Saddam didn't have WMDs is similarly impossible to prove?

by **ohio county** Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:27 am

But I know enough about republicans and their lust for power that I realize they will not go quietly or gently into the good night.

You mean like sending a cadre of lawyers down to challenge the will of the voters and then whining about it for eight years? I don't look for that to happen.

by Aaron Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:28 am

SheikBen wrote:So would you say that the argument that Saddam didn't have WMDs is similarly impossible to prove?

Seems like a legitimate question to me. Why haven't the detractors commented?

by **Stephanie** Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:10 am

Well sure. It is impossible to prove with 100% of certainty. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't be reasonably sure.

The fact that you can't prove a nation doesn't have WMD is hardly a reason to invade it.

by Aaron Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:52 am

No, it's not. But the consensus of the day in 2002/03 was the Sadaam did possess WMD's and was likely to use them. You agreed at that time, as did about 70% of the population.

While I wasn't in favor or the invasion, it wasn't becasue I didn't believe Sadaam had no WMD's. It was because I felt that while he likely possessed WMD's, he was fairly well contained.

To this day, I still think that is the case. Sadaam had WMD's, or at least the feed stock to manufacture WMD's.

The question is, where did it go. The answer is simple, at least the way I see it.

In the chaos following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, looters snatched some 15,000 priceless artifacts and smuggled them out of the country. In the last few months, Jordanian authorities seized 2,466 items as they were being taken across the border.
source

WMD's were taken out in the same manner as the artifacts, likely to Syria or Iran.

by ziggy Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:17 am

And those super sleuths at the hot shot intelligence agencies from around the world didn't have a clue all those WMDs were being moved in those months leading up to the U.S. invasion?

Bush and the PNAC had an agenda that went back years- to invade and establish U.S. military bases in Iraq. 9/11 and phantom WMDs provided the excuse to carry it out. But it was all so bogus.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded as "a non-profit educational organization" by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in early 1997. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] It has exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S President George W. Bush and strongly affected the George Bush administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4][5]

As of May 20, 2008, The Project for the New American Century website was inoperable. A message saying that the account has been suspended and to contact the billing department was put on the site's page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Rebuilding_America.27s_Defenses .

by **Stephanie** Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:06 pm

No, Aaron, I won't concede that.

When our military attacked Iraq weapons inspectors had been looking and could not find any evidence. The majority of the intelligence community was no longer hollering Saddam had WMDs.

Folks like me were duped. We were duped because we trusted the President who did such an admirable job of calming the nation and making us feel like we would find and punish the perpetrators.

by Aaron Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:19 pm

PNAC was an open organization whose goals were clear Frank. They posted an open letter to Bill Clinton stating they wanted regiment change in Iraq. As a result, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law.

You say that Bush had an agenda. If that were the case, then why didn't Congress question Donald Rumsfield on this when he was confirmed as Secretary of Defense? And why wasn't this brought up before we ever went to Iraq. It's not like PNAC tried to hide their desires from anyone/ So why are you trying to imply that is the case Frank?

PNAC had many valid reasons for their views. They were valid enough that Bill Clinton agreed with them, the H.O.R passed the bill by 90% and the US Senate, including ALL democrats, approved it unaminous consent. So how was this Bush's agenda?

by Aaron Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:20 pm

I didn't ask you to concede anything Stephanie. I expressed my opinion, what I think. If you have proof to the contrary, I would love to read it.

by **Stephanie** Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:39 pm

Aaron,

Since I got hit with that hail storm yesterdy my dial-up connection has not exceeded 9.6 kbps. Currently my connection speed is 4.8. I wish I were kidding.

So, scrounging around looking for links to documents supporting my assertion will have to wait until this works it's butt ache out. I hate living in the sticks. I'm beyond fed up.

by ziggy Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:46 pm

Aaron wrote:PNAC was an open organization whose goals were clear Frank. They posted an open letter to Bill Clinton stating they wanted regiment change in Iraq. As a result, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law.

So are you accusing me of excusing Clinton for that too?

And why wasn't this brought up before we ever went to Iraq.

It was- by folks like Jim Haught and Dan Radmacher at the Charleston Gazette- and by the New York Times and other newspapers. But war hysteria had taken hold, and those who dared question it were marginalized as "traitors", as "Saddam supporters", and as enablers of "terrorists". It was "brought up"- many times in the months preceeding the invasion.

It's not like PNAC tried to hide their desires from anyone/ So why are you trying to imply that is the case Frank?

I did not say that. I am saying that the PNAC agenda became Bush's agenda, and that Bush then hid his real agenda for Iraq from Congress and other Americans with the WMD smokescreen along with all the mixing Saddam Hussein and terrorists together in the same sentences of dozens of speeches for up to a year before invading Iraq.

PNAC had many valid reasons for their views.

I do not say they didn't. So why didn't Bush use those reasons instead of that trumped up WMD garbage to justify the invasion of Iraq?

They were valid enough that Bill Clinton agreed with them, the H.O.R passed the bill by 90% and the US Senate, including ALL democrats, approved it unaminous consent. So how was this Bush's agenda.

Bill Clinton did not take the USA to war against Iraq in pursuit of that agenda. Bush did.

by ziggy Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:48 pm

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

Since I got hit with that hail storm yesterdy my dial-up connection has not exceeded 9.6 kbps. Currently my connection speed is 4.8. I wish I were kidding.

So, scrounging around looking for links to documents supporting my assertion will have to wait until this works it's butt ache out. I hate living in the sticks. I'm beyond fed up.

It won't matter anyway, Stephanie. No amount of evidence is enough for Aaron- unless it supports his own agenda- and then it takes damn little, if any.

by Sponsored content

Will the republicans attack Iran before U.S. Elections?