Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

host · 02-10-2005, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Iran under no circumstances should be "allowed" to have nuclear weapons (nor capability for that matter).

If anything, this is the real deal that we should have focused instead of silly ol' Iraq. but whatever, what's done is done, no sense in rehashing the past. Iran looms ahead...

I think best course of action:

1. Surgical strike - either "lobbing missiles" as MojoPeiPee said (just not indiscriminately) at strategic targets.

2. Surgical strike a la Israel at Osirik.

3. I'm not sure if invasion is really feasible, it seems like we used our "power up" option in stupid Iraqi mission which kinds of sucks now and limits our options. 10,000 soldier deaths in Iran is better than 100,000s of deaths by nukes later on. Rock and a hard place...

4. Security Council NOT an option: China, Russia will veto for sure any action put forth. That's the problem with the UN. Either disband the damn thing or make it "legit" and give it some muscle and teeth.

If we move on Iran, North Korea might get the hint and we may get two birds with one stone.

Tough talk....... but it becomes a neccessity to at least develop a defensive nuclear capability in order to deter Bush.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/</a>
“We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration’s ever more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North),” the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.....................
...................'Only powerful strength can protect justice and truth'
North Korea’s “nuclear weapons will remain (a) nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances,” the ministry said. “The present reality proves that only powerful strength can protect justice and truth.”

Why do so many here still believe that Bush is capable of
competent military and diplomatic policy ? Can you offer
facts to counter the following points ?

Quote:

<a href="http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4774"> Americans Die for Sharia in Iraq</a>
American
military force smashed the secular socialist state presided over by the Ba'athist
party, "liberating" its people – and eventually gave in to the rising
demand among the majority Shi'ites for direct elections held sooner rather than
later. Now the question is how far the Americans will let the advocates of an
Islamic Republic of Iraq go before they put a stop to it. For the moment, the
Americans have to "step back," as Dick Cheney put it on Fox News <A HREF="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-06-iraq-shiite_x.htm">the
other day</A>:
"The bottom line for everybody to remember here is, this is not going
to be, you know, an Iraqi version of America. This is going to be Iraqi."
But how long can this last? As Americans continue dying and our tax dollars
are eaten up in the endless maw of Iraqi "reconstruction," on the
home front people are bound to wonder why, in the name of all that's holy, are
we sacrificing so much to recreate Iraq in the image of Iran? Cheney strenuously
denies the mullahs of Iraq will take the Iranian road, but in Basra, in the
south of Iraq, we're already beginning to see what this very odd "liberation"
entails. As the Chicago Tribune <A HREF="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0501270324jan27,1,1527964.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed">reports</A>:

"The bars and clubs that used to draw weekend crowds of gulf Arabs
escaping the restrictions of their own countries have closed. A firebombing
campaign has shuttered the liquor stores. No women dare walk in the streets
with their heads uncovered, and most wear the abaya, a black head-to-toe cloak.
Stores selling Western videos have been attacked, and music and parties are
frowned upon."
And that was before the election. What the mullahs have in store for
Iraq now that they have triumphed at the polls – with reportedly more than two-thirds
of the vote outside Kurdistan – isn't too hard to imagine. And the moment the
U.S. tries to interfere, the Shi'ites will turn on us in their overwhelming
majority: the Sunni insurgency will seem like a summer squall compared to the
Shi'ite storm they will unleash. 
Former American viceroy Paul Bremer got a taste of that when he <A HREF="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories_archive/afp_world/view/72128/1/.html">vetoed</A>
early elections and Sistani called his followers out into the streets: the Americans,
wisely, backed down. The same kind of relentless pressure is being brought to
bear on the occupation authorities as the elected government takes up the task
of writing a new constitution and establishing the legal framework of the emerging
Iraqi state.

In the name of the Bush Doctrine, which lately <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/bush.transcript/">proclaims</A>
"the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world," an Islamic theocracy
is being installed in Iraq and built up with U.S. tax dollars. The right of
women to own property and enjoy full legal personhood, long recognized in the
West – and in Saddam's Iraq – will not exist in "liberated" Iraq.
America's daughters are fighting and dying in Iraq so that Iraqi women can be
enslaved by a medieval religious and legal dogma that reduces them to subhuman
status.

 That is not going to go over very well on the home front, where support for
this war is waning fast. But for now, the administration is sticking with its
hands-off approach. As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld <A HREF="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-06-iraq-shiite_x.htm">put
it</A> on CNN's Late Edition:
"But look, Iraq is for the Iraqis. It's not for Americans. We're not
going to decide what kind of a country they're going to have."