If you have the time, read these stories and see why the middle east is a much bigger deal than if Bush says the "s" word, or if gays can get married, or ANY other issue. Because if we let history repeat itself like in the 1939's and 40's, there very well might not be a world left:
REPORT: IRAN WORKING WITH NORTH KOREA ON LONG RANGE MISSILE...
Iranian President: Solution to Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel...
Iran is not even pretending to play nice. They flat out want to destroy the West and anyone else who is not a radical Muslim....period.
It seems like much of the world is starting to figure this out.
But just think, what would happen if Bush decided to actual stop Iran before major damage was done to this world...Who would complain? Who would be marching in the streets?
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Why we need to be serious about the middle east
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
And how would Bush do this?
Jim--
Airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program.
That's the easy part. Iran will target tankers in the Persian Gulf, so we will have to smackdown their navy again like we did in during Operation Praying Mantis in 1988. Gas prices would go sky-high for a few weeks, which is why everyone is reluctant to do this unless we have to.
Over course, anything looks preferable compared to the apocalypse the end-of-timers in Iran desire.
Then what?
Then the "International Community" sends us The Strongly Worded Message about how mad they are at the United States. Who knows? Their almighty words could be "binding!" :p
Then we will fight international terrorism without the help of the rest of the world?
Do you think that the rest of the world will be our allies and cooperate with us to fight terrorism and despotism because they fear us? Do you think that Russia, France, China and other nations with financial interests in Iran will simply walk away from those interests and they will follow us because of our moral leadership? Do you think we can be successful finding and destroying those who use terror to fight our interests and attack us without the help and cooperation of the rest of the world?
Are you an isolationist?
I'm a reasonable isolationist. You dont have to be right-wing. If the US would take its meddling hands out of everybody elses business, we wouldnt be in the situations we currently are in. I have made this case, with explanations and sources, several times. I dont like to leave a situation unresolved, but as time goes on, it looks more and more like packing up and leaving Iraq is the best thing to do. The longer we stay, the more opposition there is. Let them get their numbers and take over security by the end of the year. Nobody left behind, just leave.
Again jim, the wingnut right lacks any leadership ability. Moving people to our side is what it is all about and they have no clue that that is the big picture answer. Whoever the world favors will win in the long run..It certainly isn't us now..as it was just a few years ago..gee wonder what has changed. More proof, great lack of leadership in this country. If we don't nominate the right people..in either party, this may continue.
Jim, ron--
Remember, I firmly supported the Democrats in the 1990s. I'm just against neo-coms like Cindy Sheehan, Hugo Chavez, Nancy Pelosi and Ned Lamont.
I firmly support Bill Clinton's policy of "multilaterally when we can and unilaterally when we must." We didn't get consent of the international community during Operation Desert Fox against Hussein in 1998, and President Clinton did not get U.N. approval to stop the sectarian violence in Yugoslavia in 1999.
The Chinese guy at the U.N. should never have a veto over American foreign policy, especially when groups like the Hezb'Allah and al Queda are concerned. Talking with people like bin Laden and Nasrallah isn't leadership. It is stupidity.
Bill Clinton's administration didn't fuck up Operation Desert Fox or Yugoslavia.
You lose your credibilty, whatever you had, when you throw about "neo-com". Sheehan is a radical, Chavez was elected by his country's citizens. I think you call it "democracy." Calling Pelosi a neo-com is like calling Frist a nazi. Does being against the war in Iraq, like well over half of this country, make Lamont a neo-com.
Ludicrous and without credibility.
Talking with people like bin Laden and Nasrallah isn't leadership. It is stupidity.
Kind of like trying to talk sense to wingnuts.
"Until civilians -- frankly, I'm not sure how many of them are actually just innocent little civilians running around versus active Hezbo types, particularly the men -- but until those civilians start paying a price for propping up these kinds of regimes, it's not going to end, folks. What do you mean, civilians start paying a price? I just ask you to consult history for the answer to that.”
Rush Limbaugh
On the Qana Massacre
July 31, 2006
"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal . . . As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places."
Osama bin Laden
On His Fatwa Against America
March 1997
By the way you misrepresent me when you say all I want to do is talk. I am willing to do more if that doesnt work but I want to try other non violent ways first and work my way up. Save the bunker busters and nukes as a last resort.
ron--
Talking with bin Laden after 911 would not have been appropriate. I don't see why the Hezb'Allah should be treated differently after what it did to Israel.
Jim--
Again, Clinton's policy of "multilaterally when we can and unilaterally when we must" is the principle I support. Since then the party has moved to the far, far left on foreign policy.
Naive individuals that think that the United States is intrinsically evil and can't make decisions without consent of, let us say, the People's Republic of China-- have the potential to put all of our lives at risk should they take power.
What has hezbollah done to you Jason? What have they done to the USA? Are we the worlds policeman again. I though conservatives were against that and nation building and such? This is someone elses fight. We have given Israel the best of arms and much tactical assistance. That's enough in my book. It is not the same as Osama. By the way..did we get him yet? Did we turn the whole mideast into a caldron trying? I call that FAILED POLICY.
Jason, I disagreed with Clinton on Bosnia et al. I was against that. The idea that we turn our foregin policy over to China or that any even small(maybe minuscule amount do) number of americans think America as a whole is evil is bluster and rhetoric..nonsensical bluster. The idea that we need a majority or at least the vast numbers of the worlds people behind us to be successful in our endevors is the common sensical perspective. We should be looking at how we accomplish THAT instead of when we need to say F*** You.
ron--
The Hezb'Allah killed 241 American PEACEKEEPERS sleeping in their barracks in 1983. We gave peace a chance, and hundreds of us died because of it.
I'm not a conservative, and have no problem in principle with interventionism and nation building. And as a liberal, I believe it is moral to help other liberal democracies stand up to the forces of totalitarianism, like the old Democratic Party used to stand for.
ron--
"The idea that we need a majority or at least the vast numbers of the worlds people behind us to be successful in our endevors is the common sensical perspective."
This is nonsense. Israel, for example, successfully destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility in Osirak in 1981 with world opinion overwhelmingly against Israel.
Strongly Worded Messages mean two things: Jack, and Shit. The enemies of civilization understand this, but many with decadent attitudes within civilization do not.
I said there are other things you could do besides talk. We have handled Cuba pretty astutely. We had peace and a drive towards a lasting peace in the middle east before it was totally dropped by this administration. Just like N.Korea was. Obviously you don't believe in Karma, however I do.
I also just want you to know, though I have said it time and time again, I want to get those that would harm America and Americans. I think the way we are going about it is wrong and actually harmful to our goal.
As far as having others behind us. I still find it as true. Isreal in your example did not kill many many people and accomplished a goal that prevented such. It certainly also did not accomplish the goal of changing minds about how the Arab people felt toward Isreal and that is the ultimate answer. When we talk of United we stand, Divided we fall that certainly applies to the world as well as individual countries. The more support the better in any mission one might endevor to achieve.
Ron said:
We have handled Cuba pretty astutely.
There is only one reason for that, Ron. Corruption in government, and corporate greed. Too many business dealings with Fidel --
That oughta tell you something about the U.S.
Don't believe me? Google u.s.+cuba+business -- there's even a U.S.-Cuba Trade Association, and a call to start drilling for oil in Cuba. There's much, much more on that search.
So much for hatred of the un-free world.
Now, I ask you, if we can't even be serious about places like Cuba and China, how can we honestly be serious about the Middle East?
Doesn't make sense.
Post a Comment