delusions of grandeur Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 But still claims sanctions make the situation better “I think the pressure of the sanctions, the diplomatic pressures from everywhere, Europe, the United States, elsewhere, it’s working to put pressure on them,” Panetta explained on Sunday. “To make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they’re doing. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.” But yes, let's just continue blockading them in an unofficial act of war, as gas prices go up to $5 here (based on speculation of uncertainty about oil supplies from a country we don't even buy from ). Yet they keep beating the war drum, even as there is no evidence they're even close, that they even have an interest anymore at all, or that they ever did beyond simple enrichment well below the percentage needed for weapons, and I believe they were even going to get the Russians to do it for them for nuclear power at one point (which is what they claim it's for, and we have no evidence it isn't). Okay Panetta, perhaps you're right the pressure worked, now let's stop beating the war drum as if Israel, who has around 250 nukes that Iran knows about, is under any real threat. If they want to go fight it out in the sandbox, that shouldn't be our business anyway. We've coddled Israel far too long, and even their Prime Minster is calling for us to stop interfering and giving them military aid, when we've done far more than enough for them to protect themselves how they see fit. We cannot keep bleeding ourselves dry over here to be the world's policemen. We got Bin Laden, which was the stated reason we went into Afghanistan, and we're leaving ourselves vulnerable at home by stretching our troops and budget all over the globe. And this is not to mention the increasingly large number of soldiers and contractors I know who I have to hope I never get one of those bad phone calls about. This needless militarism has to stop!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Who's beating the war drum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Who's beating the war drum? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Who's beating the war drum? It's a conspiracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 Who's beating the war drum? If I had a Big John supercomputer, that question would have just overloaded it. Let's see, we can start with the misquote from Amadontknowhowtospellthat about "wiping Isreal off the map" which has been used as the basis for stopping their non-existent weapons program, when he was really talking about his desire to "abolish the state of Israel". Quite a big difference when Israel is their holy land too (so it's pretty absurd they would want to wipe their holy land of the map, and in turn have 200 Israel nukes pointed right back at them). Flash forward today, and you'll find plenty of war rhetoric just on the news, but Israel is stepping up their rhetoric big time, as well as us and Iran, with more fresh sanctions being used against them, and them in turn making threats about closing the straight of Hormuz (or something like that, I can't even keep up with it all anymore). You could easily say that the sanctions in themselves can be considered an act of war, when we've gotten together with European countries to blockade a big part of their economy. I mean, if one of the US's big trade-partners put huge economic sanctions on us like that, there'd be far more than just rhetoric going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) It's a conspiracy. Gotcha, so it's wrong if Bush goes to war for oil according to liberals, but if we claim Obama is doing the same thing, it's a "conspiracy". (ETA: ) Edited February 21, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Who's beating the war drum? well Iran certainly is in any case, I'm not sure I understand what Panetta's getting at when he says, "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us." come on. of course they're trying to develop a nuclear weapon. everyone knows that. does anyone seriously dispute it? now...how close are they? that's another question. Israel seems to be doing a pretty good job setting them back, one little sneaky plot after another -- a nasty computer virus here, an assassinated nuke scientist there. bottom line is Israel will throw the chit at the fan before they allow Iran to get nukes. where we end up fitting into that, well, who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) well Iran certainly is in any case, I'm not sure I understand what Panetta's getting at when he says, "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us." come on. of course they're trying to develop a nuclear weapon. everyone knows that. does anyone seriously dispute it? now...how close are they? that's another question. Israel seems to be doing a pretty good job setting them back, one little sneaky plot after another -- a nasty computer virus here, an assassinated nuke scientist there. bottom line is Israel will throw the chit at the fan before they allow Iran to get nukes. where we end up fitting into that, well, who knows. Maybe he's getting at, shocker, that they're not making nuclear weapons. You do realize that Iran has always unequivocally stated it's just for nuclear power and medical purposes, and there's a good possibility even if they were, that they've now abandoned that idea. I'll have to do some research, but I remember one point where they were trying to get the Russians to enrich it way below weapons-grade for nuclear power and medical use. And if they are in fact building a weapon, then the US and Israel will stop it with a tactical strike, that's reality I know. Let's hope that doesn't create blowback that starts an all-out conflict, but one thing I know for certain is that blockading their biggest export and using that as a political tool is only exacerbating the situation. If Israel wants to go to war with Iran, then they've gotten plenty enough military aid to do it. This premise that we have to protect Israel at the cost of our own economy and soldiers is just preposterous. Edited February 21, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 How many wars have been fought between countries that have nuclear weapons again? Why bother with yet another scaaarrry middle east non-threat? Was nothing learned in Iraq? -sigh- Hell . . . Pakistan and India have been enemies for . . well . . forever. They HATE each other. And yet they havent dropped nukes on each other . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 You do realize that Iran has always unequivocally stated it's just for nuclear power and medical purposes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I love how we are the level-headed, peace-loving arbiters of who may safely possess nuclear weapons. We would certainly NEVER attack another nation capriciously, without just cause and proper planning of the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Gotcha, so it's wrong if Bush goes to war for oil according to liberals, but if we claim Obama is doing the same thing, it's a "conspiracy". (ETA: ) It won't be long now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) well Iran certainly is BTW, this article about Iran "pre-emptively" striking in response to something (which is an oximoron), only proves why sanctions can be considered and act of war and that "pre-emptive" is an example of pure rhetoric. As they said right there, it's threatening their national and economic interests, so how in the world can that be pre-emptive for them to respond to that? Edited February 21, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Gotcha, so it's wrong if Bush goes to war for oil according to liberals, but if we claim Obama is doing the same thing, it's a "conspiracy". (ETA: ) Did we invade Iran? I must have missed it. Kind of a huge difference between actually going to war and continuing a military presence that we've had in the Middle East for freaking ever and keeping our eye on a dude who keeps saying scary-crazy chight. Tell me that you're not trying to blame this administration in particular for us sticking our nose in the Middle East? And while you're at it, tell me your not downplaying the comments about Israel because he merely wants to "abolish the Israeli state" but not actually blow the land itself off the map? And, for the record, I have never been particularly keen on us running around the globe and playing police or playing Israel's bodyguard. However, that seems to be something that many other American's think is important. ETA: fixed to accurately quote you on the "abolish the Israeli state" thing. Edited February 21, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 BTW, this article about Iran "pre-emptively" striking in response to something (which is an oximoron), only proves why sanctions can be considered and act of war and that "pre-emptive" is an example of pure rhetoric. As they said right there, it's threatening their national and economic interests, so how in the world can that be pre-emptive for them to respond to that? irrelevant semantics. someone asked who is beating the war drum, and I answered that Iran certainly is, for one. the article indicates that pretty clearly, whether such sabre-rattling on their part is "pre-emptive" or totally justified or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Did we invade Iran? I must have missed it. Kind of a huge difference between actually going to war and continuing a military presence that we've had in the Middle East for freaking ever and keeping our eye on a dude who keeps saying scary-crazy chight. I, for one, am ashamed of my hypocrisy for abstaining from criticizing the Obama administration's decision to declare war on Iran. You should be to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 Did we invade Iran? I must have missed it. Kind of a huge difference between actually going to war and continuing a military presence that we've had in the Middle East for freaking ever and keeping our eye on a dude who keeps saying scary-crazy chight. Tell me that you're not trying to blame this administration in particular for us sticking our nose in the Middle East? And while you're at it, tell me your not downplaying the comments about Israel because he merely wants to exterminate the Israeli people but not actually blow the land itself off the map? And, for the record, I have never been particularly keen on us running around the globe and playing police or playing Israel's bodyguard. However, that seems to be something that many other American's think is important. No, I'm blaming this administration quietly expanding our role in the Middle East in Libya, Syria, and continuing fresh sanctions against Iran that are escalating into what could be a gigantic conflict. Just because the US really logistically doesn't want to get into a conflict with Iran right now, doesn't mean that they're not still meddling heavily in their affairs any other way they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 No, I'm blaming this administration quietly expanding our role in the Middle East in Libya, Syria, and continuing fresh sanctions against Iran that are escalating into what could be a gigantic conflict. Just because the US really logistically doesn't want to get into a conflict with Iran right now, doesn't mean that they're not still meddling heavily in their affairs any other way they can. Dont worry . . . just as soon as Santoromney gets elected, we will immediately invade. Look at the 4 years of Obama as a "recess" between unneeded invasions. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 irrelevant semantics. someone asked who is beating the war drum, and I answered that Iran certainly is, for one. the article indicates that pretty clearly, whether such sabre-rattling on their part is "pre-emptive" or totally justified or whatever. May be irrelevant to your point, but I certainly do not think sanctions as a catalyst for "pre-emptive" retaliation is irrelevant semantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Dont worry . . . just as soon as Santoromney gets elected, we will immediately invade. Look at the 4 years of Obama as a "recess" between unneeded invasions. . . Don't worry, I don't think either of those clowns would be capable of even toppling Carter at his lowest approval rating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 Dont worry . . . just as soon as Santoromney gets elected, we will immediately invade. Look at the 4 years of Obama as a "recess" between unneeded invasions. . . And his promise to bring the troops home? My buddy just got back from Afghanistan and sees no point in what we're still doing over there. The goal of the mission was to get Bin Laden, and they did. Yet we've stayed there, interfered in Libya, now Syria, and we wonder why they freaking hate us... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 No, I'm blaming this administration quietly expanding our role in the Middle East in Libya, Syria, and continuing fresh sanctions against Iran that are escalating into what could be a gigantic conflict. Just because the US really logistically doesn't want to get into a conflict with Iran right now, doesn't mean that they're not still meddling heavily in their affairs any other way they can. You, sir, enjoy a special and creative brand of reality. Are you implying that the GOP is being dragged kicking and screaming into involvement in the Middle East because Obama is hell-bent on it? None the less, you made a freaking horrible and inane point when you compared what we're doing right now with actually invading a country and declaring war. The US has been doing this sort of stuff for years. But you just glossed over it like it was nothing. In other words, you don't seem to have any interest in being factually correct, just being loud. Ironic, really, that much of your GOP looks upon sanctions as some Rosie O'Donnell move for guys afraid to just draw down. So, which is it? Is Obama a warmonger or a Rosie O'Donnell? He can't be both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Is Obama a warmonger or a Rosie O'Donnell? I believe we'd have to ask Mrs. Obama if Barry likes to chew the muff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 You, sir, enjoy a special and creative brand of reality. Are you implying that the GOP is being dragged kicking and screaming into involvement in the Middle East because Obama is hell-bent on it? None the less, you made a freaking horrible and inane point when you compared what we're doing right now with actually invading a country and declaring war. The US has been doing this sort of stuff for years. But you just glossed over it like it was nothing. In other words, you don't seem to have any interest in being factually correct, just being loud. Ironic, really, that much of your GOP looks upon sanctions as some Rosie O'Donnell move for guys afraid to just draw down. So, which is it? Is Obama a warmonger or a Rosie O'Donnell? He can't be both. Isn't that pretty much what you'd expect from a guy calling himself "Delusions of Grandeur"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) You, sir, enjoy a special and creative brand of reality. Are you implying that the GOP is being dragged kicking and screaming into involvement in the Middle East because Obama is hell-bent on it? None the less, you made a freaking horrible and inane point when you compared what we're doing right now with actually invading a country and declaring war. The US has been doing this sort of stuff for years. But you just glossed over it like it was nothing. In other words, you don't seem to have any interest in being factually correct, just being loud. Ironic, really, that much of your GOP looks upon sanctions as some Rosie O'Donnell move for guys afraid to just draw down. So, which is it? Is Obama a warmonger or a Rosie O'Donnell? He can't be both. Dude, you must have gotten the wrong view of me from our recent discussions. I'm a conservative libertarian, not a neocon chickenhawk, nor even republican for what it stands for today. I've spoken out plenty about Bush here I'm sure (you could probably find some good ones jsut searching for "conspiracy"), but at least I knew by his second term that he was warmongerer I couldn't trust. I might have actually voted for Obama if I knew that he was more than just empty rhetoric he wasn't going to deliver on. When he got elected, I had a sense of, well let's see if he'll at least get us out of these conflicts, and I can handle better what he does here. But all he's done is jsut do it more quietly than Bush did. In fact, you're correct that there really is no difference between repoublicans and democrats in office anymore, other than one side screams war and the other whispers peace and does it through quiet "operations" like Libya and sanctions on Iran. And dude, I'm being loud because I know, you know, we all know people who are needlessly being put in harms way as we bankrupt ourselves with imperialism all over the world. Edited February 21, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.