Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Courage the Cowardly Dog Courage the Cowardly Dog is offline
Unmedicated genius
Courage the Cowardly Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Nowhere, Missouri
Old Nov 1st, 2007, 02:48 AM        "Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" the Hillary remix
A bill urging President Bush to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization has become a litmus test for the Democratic contenders. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, joining 29 other Democrats and 47 Republicans as the Senate OK’d the non-binding statement.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21553970/

My personal democratic pick, Joe Biden abstained from the vote. If you told me 2 years ago we would bomb Iran i'd call you a paranoid nutjob. In fact I probably did (hi geggy) Now with polls showing a little over 50% support for that idea and Bush posturing his rhetoric I'm getting nervous.

The reason I never thought it would happen was simple. Not because our troops were stretched thin, but because Iran holds REAL elections. In fact during the mid terms Ahmadinajad's party was voted out EN MASSE and Ahmadinajad's own approval ratings are Bush level. People torched the gas stations after the last gas hike an blamed Ahmadinajad for failure to refine more locally. After his laughable interviews in America Iranian college students carried signs saying "death to the dictator" in Farsi. Now people are blaming his increased rhetoric and nuclear program with bringing harsh sanctions on the country severely hurting their economy and the average worker. He may not even serve out the last two years of his term befor the people demand a recall election. And whoever replaced him will likely be far less extreme in the same direction as him.

It turns out i was as wrong as when I thought people gave a shit about Darfur. When John McKain was asked to comment on his off colour bomb iran joke he told the press to grow a sense of humour. I assumed, and hope i was right but now would like him to specifiy, that's cause he knows that's not a logical option and the only reason to keep it on the table is to make Iran think it's an option and give them more reason to back down. Sadly just like in 2000 he'll never make it to the main election, although this time it won't be due to in party rumours about his adopted black daughter, but I digress.

I think if we want Iraq's neighbours to help us stablize it so we can leave we need to do some ass kissing. Exactly the kind Turkey is getting. Hell we should apologize for not handling the Kurdish seperatist terrorists like our responsibility is, not bitching about some ottoman civil war over 100 years ago. What we do now during this administration, both Bush and Ahmadinijad, will decide if Iran's new president will offer peace keeping troops along the iraqi border.

Oh yeah, I just got back from a holiday in the Philippines, (cambodia didn't sound as nice as the dead kennedy's implied so I went a little southeast) Thanks for reading my wall of text.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Old Nov 2nd, 2007, 07:53 AM       
Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page A15

Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy."

Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.

Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium -- the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weapons builders.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar26.html

I guess it's good thing that majority of the people (i dont know where you got 50%) aren't falling for bush adminstration's claims again like we did in that saddam and the wmd thingy during the run up to iraq war.
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #3  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Nov 3rd, 2007, 01:44 PM       
Courage, don't go nuts over that poll. I think it was a Zogby poll, which is completely untrustworthy and uses a strange methodology.

Quote:
The reason I never thought it would happen was simple. Not because our troops were stretched thin, but because Iran holds REAL elections. In fact during the mid terms Ahmadinajad's party was voted out EN MASSE and Ahmadinajad's own approval ratings are Bush level. People torched the gas stations after the last gas hike an blamed Ahmadinajad for failure to refine more locally. After his laughable interviews in America Iranian college students carried signs saying "death to the dictator" in Farsi. Now people are blaming his increased rhetoric and nuclear program with bringing harsh sanctions on the country severely hurting their economy and the average worker. He may not even serve out the last two years of his term befor the people demand a recall election. And whoever replaced him will likely be far less extreme in the same direction as him.
I think you make a great argument for not pursuing a regime change there. They have a long history of kicking the bums out in Persia, and they'll eventually do the same to this cult.

But don't get excited about public protests and elections. The problem with the Republicans and some other Western critics is thatthey have turned Ahmadinejad into something he is not. Now, the Left has decided to engage in an equally disingenuous campaign by arguing that he's completely powerless. Neither is the case.

But we make a mistake if we look at a presidential race there and view it as a fresh regime. Whatever happens in the majlis (their parliament) is checked and verified by agents of the Supreme Leader, the Guardians Council. To run for office in Iran, you must first qualify through Revolutionary channels.

And their "moderates" are not our moderates. Rafsanjani, while being credited as a more moderating voice, is still an extremist twelver. He still helped his Ayatollah defend the "Revolution" in the 80's against Iraq, a brutal and inhumane war. Political assassinations against dissidents and Jews took place all around the world while he was president of the country, and it's rather likely that the vacuous Mohammad khatami was carted out to take his place all in show, all thought up by the Ayatollah.

They love the Western concept of so-called moderates, because every decade or so, they can prop one of them up and say "see, we are making progress!"

It's a sad state of affairs, and my heart goes out to those people. They deserve better than the bloddy and oppressive history they've been given (which of course predates the revolution).

But if we're talking U.S. security, then we needn't concern ourselves with those citizens. We have three concerns: 1. Iran's nuclear program, 2. Iran's role in Iraq, and 3. the least mentioned, their state-sponsored support of global terrorism.

So, what do we do? Well we don't listen to retards like Geggy who probably think the program is peaceful. If the program was peaceful, if they had nothing to hide, they wouldn't have delt with the IAEA. The UN has become a classic stalling mechanism for petty dictatorships. If they simply wanted nuclear energy, they would've taken up the Russian offer from over a year ago to supply them with it. If they wanted to improve their economy, they would've optioned for the EU/Western offer to join the WTO in 2005.

They don't want this. What they want is security and license to be a regional hegemon. A bomb would grant them this. Even critics of an attack who have a brain acknowledge this (which would exclude Geggy). So, while regime change in my mind shouldn't be our policy, an attack should remain on the table.

The West's hesitation about tihs strikes me as rather odd. President Clinton dropped bombs all over the muslim world in the 90's, often against terrorism. But now, for some reason, bombing Iran's nuclear and military sites would be a casus belli. The Muslim world would rise up in anger or something, and our troops in Iraq would be under tremendous fire. News flash, THEY ALREADY ARE. And I'd like to see Irans Revolutionary Guard mobilize the citizen army they boast. I think it would tell us more about Iran than it would us. I think you'd see unrest against Tehran (and let's be realistic...Qom).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Nov 6th, 2007, 03:53 AM       
I still say our current foreign policy needs Iran to emerge as a Democratic leader in that region. I don't think we can hardly risk bombing the Hell out of the one country that has shown is can produce an advanced civilization when we need that capability to allow our troops to someday have some other region of the world to worry about and die in.

Iran is gonna get the bomb. Ok, so what then?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Nov 6th, 2007, 10:01 AM       
They are years from one, by most estimates, and we should prevent them from having it.

A world with a nuclear Iran may be a reality we'll need to deal with, but we're not there. That being said, I think we are still REALLY far from needing to go in there and bomb stuff. Sanctions and diplomacy are still an option, but the fear that they might get bombed should remain a piece in that diplomacy.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:03 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.