Iran: A Bridge too Far?

[Mazer]

We don't have to interfere with China's business to cripple Iran's economy. All we have to do is make it impossible for them to transport their oil out of the Persian Gulf with a naval blockade. Iran will still have its natural gas pipelines, but without the ability to sell oil over seas the whole nation will fall into a depression and no American soldier will ever have to set foot within Iran's borders.

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by Mazer

We don't have to interfere with China's business to cripple Iran's economy. All we have to do is make it impossible for them to transport their oil out of the Persian Gulf with a naval blockade. Iran will still have its natural gas pipelines, but without the ability to sell oil over seas the whole nation will fall into a depression and no American soldier will ever have to set foot within Iran's borders.

sounds like a slamdunkin cakewalk and we all know how those turn out...

[Mazer]

It's a far better option than invasion. Besides, it's about time the Navy had something to do.

Is there any better way to contain Iran?

[Drakonix]

The U.S. probably will not need to do much - at least at first. Israel will probably nuke Iran.

I don't like that, but I can't really blame them under the circumstances - Iran has pledged to obliterate Israel.

Israel doesn't have much of a choice but to act if they want to survive, and I'm sure they do.

It will probably start with conventional bunker busters and low yeild nuclear bunker busters taking out hardened nuclear facilities inside Iran. The nuclear capabilities of Iran will be toast.

Might be the start of WW3. It's a very bad situation. The Muslims are going to have to face the facts that terrorism and jihad is not the answer to anything.

14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus wote "Everything Mohammad brought was evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached" - therein lies the real problem.

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by Mazer

It's a far better option than invasion. Besides, it's about time the Navy had something to do.

Is there any better way to contain Iran?

yes, yes there is.
leave them alone.
if they do something; then wipe em off the earth.
what is the deal with all the "pre-emptive" fear anyway?
oh yeah, i forgot, that is what your cult leaders tell you to think...
base your actions on things that MAY happen and you get to decide what MAY happen.
thank God your kind is now out of power in DC.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by RDixon

yes, yes there is.
leave them alone.
if they do something; then wipe em off the earth.
what is the deal with all the "pre-emptive" fear anyway?
oh yeah, i forgot, that is what your cult leaders tell you to think...
base your actions on things that MAY happen and you get to decide what MAY happen.
thank God your kind is now out of power in DC.

Other than my snarky comment about the Navy, I haven't suggested any preemptive action. You've gone the other way completely. Wipe them off the earth? There's no need for that either. I'm talking about containment, not obliteration. You think the neocons just want to invade? Well believe you me, they're looking for alternatives as well, not just because the Dems won a symbolic victory in Washington, but because it is impossible to invade Iran.

Anyway, the neocons are not my kind. I'm more of a libertarian if you remember.

[multi]

oh come now Mazer.. you have supported everything the neocons have done so far

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by RDixon

yes, yes there is.
leave them alone.
if they do something; then wipe em off the earth.
what is the deal with all the "pre-emptive" fear anyway?
oh yeah, i forgot, that is what your cult leaders tell you to think...
base your actions on things that MAY happen and you get to decide what MAY happen.
thank God your kind is now out of power in DC.

Appeasement and abandonment will not work, it never has and it never will. That is what the world did with Germany and Hitler in the 30’s. Winston Churchill was the only leader brave enough to stand up against Hitler before WWII began, but he was alone and the world let WWII happen. In December there was a election in Iran and the moderate conservative’s won big, which means the moderates are tired of their President provoking the West while ignoring the horrible conditions inside his own country. That's a huge slap in the face to him personally, but it proves that the people of Iran aren't buying into their leader's apocalyptic agenda. So really it is the radicals in the country who are pushing for a confrontation with the West, not the average citizens. The best thing that can happen is the Iranian people change their own destiny, which I personally think most want. The worst thing the USA and the world could do is give up on Iraq. The USA must let the Iraqi and Iranian people know they are behind them no matter the cost, to bring democracy to their countries. You cannot say, we will help you but if the tuff gets going you are on your own. If the Iranian people see that seed of democracy planted right next door why wouldn’t they rise up and fight for those same freedoms! It takes sacrifice, it took a civil war in the USA to give Blacks the same freedoms all others had. Big Change is not easy, it is often deadly, who knows how America would be if Lincoln quit his efforts when the tuff got going. I know some will say Iraq is not Americas fight, and I say you made it your fight and America will have to stick with it. If the USA leaves Iraq, Iran will become a bigger problem and War will happen, there is no doubt in my mind, as some one said, Israel will not allow Iran to become a bigger threat to them, and an attack by Israel is attack from the USA in the minds of the radicals in the Middle East.

September 26, 1938. That's just three days before Prime Minister Chamberlain signed the infamous Munich agreement with Hitler; an agreement that, to this day, stands as a shining example of how appeasement does not work.

With Chamberlain visiting Hitler in a futile effort to save the peace, it was Winston Churchill who stood up and appealed directly to the United States to get involved. Listen closely to his words on that day...

"If the Government and people of the USA have a word to speak for the salvation of the world, now is the time and now is the last time when words will be of any use...It will indeed be a tragedy if this last effort is not made in the only way in which it may be effective to save mankind from martyrdom."

Nine days later, after the Munich Agreement had been signed and the world cheered, Churchill spoke again...

"I will...begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing...what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat..."

At the time he made that speech in the House of Commons, Churchill could count on one hand the number of friends he had in Parliament. Who will stand up today and willingly face that same kind of abandonment and alienation? I will; and I hope you will, but which of our leaders has the guts to say what no one wants to hear: There is no appeasing those who do not want to be appeased. Whether or not we want to go to war is irrelevant; the war is already on -- the only question is if we'll fight back now or wait for the next December 7th.

Will history repeat itself?

[multi]

so the US should never leave Iraq?
because you will not enforce democracy on them any other way

Churchill used to trace his Zionism back to the days of the Balfour Declaration, describing himself as "an old Zionist." His attitude toward Zionism remained as passionate and as explicit following his return to Ten Downing Street in 1951. Now, however, with the State of Israel firmly in place, the images he entertained became perhaps more vivid, more colorful, and as ever imbued with historical resonance.

Thus, in June 1954, Churchill stated to journalists in the United States, "I am a Zionist, let me make that clear. I was one of the original ones after the Balfour Declaration and I have worked faithfully for it." This was merely the introduction. He went on: "I think it is a most wonderful thing that this community should have established itself so effectively, turning the desert into fertile gardens and thriving townships, and should have afforded refuge to millions of their co-religionists who suffered so fearfully under Hitler, and not only under Hitler, persecution. I think it is a wonderful thing." In a conversation with Israel's Ambassador in London, Eliyahu Elath, Churchill referred to Israel's population as "the sons of the prophets dwelling in Zion."

this fucker was a complete asshole... get real

because of him and Rothschild that there is such a problem there in the first place

As Colonial Secretary, he virtually cut off Trans-Jordan from the Palestine Mandated territory (1921), and in the Churchill White Paper (1922) formulated what he believed would remain the basis of Anglo Jewish cooperation. His subsequent attacks against the measures proposed in the Passfield White Paper of 1939 were based on the premise that they constituted a breach of an agreed policy expressed in his own White Paper.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by multi

so the US should never leave Iraq?
because you will not enforce democracy on them any other way

Well it depends on what you mean by the USA should never leave. Did the USA really ever leave Japan or West Germany, (Germany today), after WWII?? 60 years later the USA does have interest in these countries. Are things there awful because of it?

And I am not forcing Democracy on anybody.