At 2 hours ago, Ranger2 wrote:
No, just that there was a disarmament crisis before the invasion of Iraq.
There was no "crisis" just the trumped up and manufactured charges by the Bush administration who attempted to turn that into a "crisis". Don't try to argue very documented recent history. Iraq was a farce, and this is looking like exactly the same sort of farce, except that we know Iran has a definite nuclear energy program, so the current administration and anybody else looking at war feels like it's easier to turn that into a nuclear weapons program.
There you go again with the conspiracy junk.
It was actually a well written and sourced article, from a respected news source. Would you like a link? Also how's come my pointing out this speculation is "conspiracy junk" but the lies that got us into Iraq, and the speculation that pushes towards Iran are somehow much more better and credible? Is it just because the latter serves your purposes and opinions better then the former? Because that's my bet personally.
Saddam attempted to assassinate President Bush in 1993.
Which was irrelevant to the Iraqi invasion of 03, and not the stated reason for the war in 93, the stated reason was protection of Kuwait. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1019-05.htm. The fact that it also looks to be not true helps too. Get out of The Bubble, it's a trap.
Iran tried to assassinate a Saudi national in the US a few months ago. I think that's a bit more than saber rattling.
Source?
Then those UN inspectors in Iran are in there for nothing, right?
Just because there are inspectors there doesn't mean there's weapons. It just means the UN wants to make sure that Iran:
a) doesn't have weapons
and
b) aren't building weapons
Just like in Iraq, you know, when those inspectors kept coming back and saying there were no weapons but your hero W said they were wrong, or lying, and there were weapons?
I'm a Democrat, and I don't watch Fox News.
Could have fooled me the way you are touting blatantly false and bullshit right-wing Republican talking points.
But thanks for showing your uneducated bias by trying to label me.
I thought the label fit since you were acting textbook like that, I've never met a single Dem or liberal who likes George Bush as much as you seem to, and certainly not one that still believes his bullshit cover stories for Iraq.
Stop reading Russia Today and the Guardian.
Because clearly you're showing me up by upping the ad hominem level. Good work!
This isn't about you really thinking that Iran is harmless. This is more of your anti-American bias.
No, this is me saying that while Iran is not harmless, they are also not worth an invasion. But you're right, it is anti-American to disagree with your government. No American ever has disagreed with their government, that's crazy. Oh wait, right, The Revolution. It's perfectly American to hold your leaders responsible and call them out if they're trying to drive you off a cliff, or not protect your interests. If all you got is ad hominem son, don't reply.
In 1993 and 1998, we attacked an enemy country that was developing weapons of mass destruction by cruise missile strikes and bombings.
We have not proven Iran is developing WMD. Iraq was attacked in 93 because they attacked Kuwait, it was not about WMD (we knew they had some, since we GAVE it to them) except for our fears they might use some of the stuff we gave them. 98 was about regime change because Bill Clinton believed Saddam was a threat, and there was that little scandal he was having at the time...politics isn't simple kiddo, and the bosses don't always tell us the whole truth.
What would that be?
A bomb, bomb making materials, scientists known to make bombs working in their nuclear program. Those are good metrics don't you think?
Let's say we have clear proof Iran is planning to attack. Would you be ok with a pre-emptive strike?
Sure, any reasonable person would. If Iran is clearly planning to attack, then it is absolutely ok to pre-empt them and stop that attack. But that's not what's happening here, so I'm just going to guess you're trying to gauge how close to the pacifist category I fall into.
We suck at nation building?
We do indeed. We install governments, and they tend to be corrupt, unpopular, and fall.
How's Germany doing?
We didn't build that. West Germany was propped up by our allies with our help. East Germany was under Russian control and then the two merged and forged their own way. Germany is not a valid example.
South Korea?
We didn't install that government, we just fought to defend it and keep the North from swallowing it.
Japan? They're the products of US nation building.
Nope, Japan isn't either. Japan surrendered, formed their own government after the war and drafted a Peace Constitution.
China is an example of a nation building attempt though (failed corrupt government replaced by current communist government), Cuba is (install Castro, he turns), Vietnam (attempt to secure the South, get asses kicked, communist North swallows south). So yeah, we SUCK at nation building!
