As most of you have heard or read, Iran "tested" at least 7 missiles today. This has increased tensions in the Middle East and around the world. Israeli minister, Ze'ev Boim stated that "Israel should prepare itself to do what is needed to do." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7498214.stm
While I cannot say for certain what the United States should do about this Iranian issue, I do know that we have far fewer options because of "w" pushing our country into a war in Iraq. What do you think?
I personally think we should keep our political agendas off this board. There are many sites for debating politics - this is not one of them.
If you want to speak about what our nation should do about a rogue nation such as Iran, then that we can discuss. I do not believe that the Iran issue is an issue that this nation must address on its own as is evident by the numerous nations who have denounced Iran's procurement of nuclear capability and its manuevers.
God Bless our Country and Our Soldiers in harm's way!
Tim, thank you for commenting. I respectfully disagree that this is not a site for debating politics. Many of the most active groups on ActiveRain are not about real estate. Would you agree that ActiveRain members are generally intelligent people? I am interested in starting dialogs with intelligent people about significant issues. No one is required to be a member of Blatant Politics or to read its blogs/comments.
Hello Jon - for good or bad, the Israeli connection certainly seems to keep the US at odds with almost every other middle eastern country. According to the AP, in response to Condoleezza Rice's statement earlier today, that the US will continue to help protect Israel from the Iranian missile threats, Iran test fired more missiles. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hKO6E2Vs5MktD_-DXHsbQ6tnT1-QD91R1JDG0
I used to work with a lender's wholesale rep with the same name, didn't think you were he (as a matter of fact about 40 years too young). That is what brought me here. Interesting content. Obviously, you are not afraid of controversy. I, too, would enjoy intelligent discussion of the issues, but unfortunately, that often is not the case with political issues.
I do think that no matter who wins the next election, America loses. As far as Iran, there is no way to make them our friends as was suggested above. We also can't bomb them off of the face of the earth as was also suggested.
What would be the most effect thing to do is make ourselves energy independent like Brazil has done. That means using all methods available to us from conservation to alternative energy sources to drilling in our known reserves. As long as the American people are funding the terrorists with our oil dollars, we cannot know peace.
Jay I think Israel will take the point on the Iranian problem, which is scary in and of itself, but i don't see this problem going away without military action. All I can say is i suggest everyone make peace with their maker.
Thank you all for your comments. I look forward to more!
To sum it up in an historical perspective - Israel bombed Baghdad in 1981 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm) and WWIII was not the result. Therefore, if history repeats itself - if Israel bombs Iran, a middle eastern county with nuclear capabilities, essentially nothing else will happen.
Well, the rumors of war are everywhere, but the destructive capacities and the regional implications of a war between Iran and Israel is enough to put a hold on hostilities. Also, diplomacy by threat, or by not talking to people we don't like, will rarely succeed. Look at - Libya, Syria, China, former Warsaw Pact /USSR, North Korea, (today Israel/Palestine nearing agreement), and so on. Sure, we are militarily the most powerful nation on earth, but military strength alone is not the answer. The only issue presently on the table that requires uncompromised aggression is neutralizing Bin Laden.
Jay - I disagree with your premise that President Bush pushed us into war in Iraq. We all seem to forget that the policy of regime change in Iraq was bipartisan and was initiated by Congressional legislation during the Clinton administration and fully authorized again by Congress during the Bush Administration.
It was the rhetoric and the violence of Saddam Hussein, as well as the intelligence community - ours and our allies' - appraisal of the situation that led to the Iraq decisions. In retrospect it is possible that Hussein was not as prepared as we thought. It is also possible that we merely gave Hussein time to remove his weapons to Syria or conceal them in his country. It is a fact that we did not find everything that we expected - but that does not make it a fact that nothing ever existed. Hussein obviously had biological and chemical capabilities since he deployed them against his own people. We have now a quantity of yellow cake uranium to explain and dispose of, but I agree that some of the after the fact evidence does not support the original conclusion. The potential existence of weapons of mass destruction in the post 9/11 world with terror groups willing to provide a delivery system to our shores was too great a risk for us. I support our decisions then and I support them now.
So we face a new threat in Ahmadinajhad and Iran. The rhetoric is familiar. But it is beyond contest that his national policy is the destruction of Israel. Their possession of nuclear weapons with the missil systems needed to threaten our interests or Israel's is unacceptable - particularly in a region as volatile as the Middle East. The politics of Iraq have made it difficult for the President to move on another front, but some action may be necessary at some point if we are unsuccessful in defusing the bomb that is ticking in Iran through our diplomatic efforts and that of our allies and other interested parties. Will Ahmadinajhad turn out to be all hat and no cattle (as my Texas friends would say) or do we have a madman in charge who actually intends to incinerate 6 million Israelis. Been there, done that - I do not expect that we will stand by and let that happen again.
Whether it is accomplished by Israeli military forces, American or some coalition - we are on a course for surgical strikes against the nuclear facilities of Iran if no other solution presents itself.
I don't think that anyone has forgotten that Iraq had been under sanctions for years prior to the 2003 invasion. However, the urgency of an attack was not placed until March 2003 - when "W" gave Saddam Hussein and his sons a 48 hour deadline to leave Iraq (2 years, 2 months into the "W" administration and 18 months after the 9/11 attacks). Bush demonstrated a leisurely pace, certainly no sense of urgency, when he sat in a Florida elementary school room for several minutes after being informed of an attack on the World Trade Center - so, I guess that it's no surprise that he waited many months before invading a country that "harbored terrorists" and "possessed weapons of mass destruction".
My opinion... time will tell, but Ahmadinajhad seems to be "all hat". Nonetheless, 2008 minus the US in Iraq would see an American/Coalition invasion of Iran.
Thanks for joining the group. We look forward to many more of your comments!
Nick, Israel is NO BODY'S friend, they are just a parasitic hanger on. I can't believe you would even say that they are a good ally. If we just cut ties with them we could pick and choose who our allys would be from a whole host of countries that haven't Stolen the land their country is on. I thought you were on the ball, but obviously you need some more time to think about what you're saying. Israel is the worst idea America ever backed...and thats saying alot.
Performing professionally since 1995 - some of the words that describe the voice of Jay Allen are "deep, powerful, confident and calming." Jay will provide the voice your business needs.
;)
Links;)
Archives
Don't blame Bush, Congress tied his hands! We should bomb the suckers NOW!
BTW Diplomacy doesn't work with hellbent idiots like them...blow them off the map.