Iran Threatens To Take Action If US Carrier Returns

[cgroupman]

Quote from Trader666:

I must sound like a broken record with the number of times I've said this lately but check out the Powell Doctrine. It's a simple list of no-nonsense tests and BTW military action is only the last resort and I don't think we've exhausting all other means yet by any stretch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

I'm sorry. If you agree with the above, and that military action should be kept as a last resort, then I support what you say. I may have mis-interpreted something along the line. Some of your other posts seem to point to a much more hawkish opinion.

And, since the wiki links the Powell doctrine with an interview on the Rachel Maddow show, you must be more centrist than I thought.


c

 

[rew]

Quote from Trader666:

And that's Saddam Hussein's fault for being uncooperative and noncompliant. So I'd add those deaths to the one million+ body count he racked up before we kicked him out of Kuwait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

I won't shed any tears for Qaddafi because when you compare his final hours to the suffering he caused, it's such an imperceptively tiny fraction that I'd consider him fortunate. Extremely so.

Why would anybody trust us? Have you noticed we only have problems with bad regimes that do bad things like invade Kuwait or order the bombing of a 747 (not to mention what they do to their own people)? If I were one of those regimes I'd recognize the pattern and NOT trust us. I do regard the embargo as an act of war BTW. I also regard Iran's IED support to kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as an act of war. And we're not the only ones who have a problem with Iran as I pointed out before with the list of sanctions.

So I'm not about to blame America, nor will I be so naive to think we can trust Iran with nukes or that appeasement and non-intervention will work. Look at how well that worked out for us in the events leading up to our involvement in World War I or Neville Chamberlain's Munich Agreement.

So you concede that we have already started a war with Iran. Good. Now don't pretend to be shocked or surprised when they start fighting back, say, by mining the Straits of Hormuz. And if they do something like that and the neocons say, "See -- the Iranians have started a war with us!" then you must agree that they are lying, because we already started the war.

Whenever I see Chamberlain mentioned I know I have won the argument. When an advocate of endless war has no other argument he bleats out "Neville Chamberlain!".

 

[pspr]

LOL Does that sort of come out like a burp? The perp just looks around as says, "Excuse me, I must have lost the argument."

Quote from rew:

When an advocate of endless war has no other argument he bleats out "Neville Chamberlain!".

 

[Trader666]

I conceded no such thing because you conveniently ignored their prior acts of war against us.

I'm not an advocate of endless war either, and whenever I see someone make baseless accusations like that along with your claim about mentioning Chamberlain, I know I've won the argument.

Quote from rew:

So you concede that we have already started a war with Iran. Good. Now don't pretend to be shocked or surprised when they start fighting back, say, by mining the Straits of Hormuz. And if they do something like that and the neocons say, "See -- the Iranians have started a war with us!" then you must agree that they are lying, because we already started the war.

Whenever I see Chamberlain mentioned I know I have won the argument. When an advocate of endless war has no other argument he bleats out "Neville Chamberlain!".

 

[Trader666]

I absolutely believe that military action should be the last resort, along with the other tests of the Powell Doctrine which make the use of force even more restrictive. I also believe we shouldn't shy away from military action when it's called for either, and would add that in no way are these two views mutually exclusive.

Quote from cgroupman:

I'm sorry. If you agree with the above, and that military action should be kept as a last resort, then I support what you say. I may have mis-interpreted something along the line. Some of your other posts seem to point to a much more hawkish opinion.

And, since the wiki links the Powell doctrine with an interview on the Rachel Maddow show, you must be more centrist than I thought.


c

 

[ammo]

Quote from pspr:

All Saddam had to do to avoid the war was to leave the country. He could be living high somewhere in the world today if he had any sense.

CIA,followed saddam around for 10 yrs,had plenty of time to take him out,he was a prisoner in his own country,could not leave,had look alikes in limo's going to several of his homes for lunch,dinner to throw cia off,cia said it was better to leave him in power and control him with a $50 mil price on his head,than to take him out and get an unknown in there,there is always another dictator in the wings

 

[ammo]

Quote from Trader666:

I absolutely believe that military action should be the last resort, along with the other tests of the Powell Doctrine which make the use of force even more restrictive. I also believe we shouldn't shy away from military action when it's called for either, and would add that in no way are these two views mutually exclusive.

you do realize that most wars are not necessary and the reasons for starting them are usually contrived as a tool to go in and take a commodity(oil) or control of a commodity(oil,land) that doesn't belong to you, the threat of the U S ever being attacked would mean suicide for the other country,that country would have to have a psychopath in charge,like idi amin,not likely, so barring an idi,the U S is never at war for defense,only at war for corporate(shell,BP) gain or gain for an ally such as israel,protecting israel gives us a foothold in the ME,because without the oil our factories would screech to a halt,going in and taking what we want for the good of Shell ,Halliburton or BP or GD's military budget is much cheaper and quicker than negotiating,and more profitable in the end,it all happens under our flag,we get blamed,hated for it,the corporations make the profits ,the behind the scene movers and shakers make billions,we the american people get the hate ,the leaders(bush)come and go and the hate dies away for them

 

[Trader666]

How about re-reading what I wrote, then looking up the Powell Doctrine. No, I'll do that for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

Now tell me why a war meeting its tests would NOT be worth fighting.

Quote from ammo:

you do realize that most wars are not necessary and the reasons for starting them are usually contrived...

 

[Mav88]

you do realize that most wars are not necessary and the reasons for starting them are usually contrived as a tool to go in and take a commodity(oil) or control of a commodity(oil,land) that doesn't belong to you, the threat of the U S ever being attacked would mean suicide for the other country,that country would have to have a psychopath in charge,like idi amin,not likely, so barring an idi,the U S is never at war for defense,only at war for corporate(shell,BP) gain or gain for an ally such as israel,protecting israel gives us a foothold in the ME,because without the oil our factories would screech to a halt,going in and taking what we want for the good of Shell ,Halliburton or BP or GD's military budget is much cheaper and quicker than negotiating,and more profitable in the end,it all happens under our flag,we get blamed,hated for it,the corporations make the profits ,the behind the scene movers and shakers make billions,we the american people get the hate ,the leaders(bush)come and go and the hate dies away for them

You do realize that supporting Isreal makes it harder, not easier, to obtain oil?

You do realize that all Americans depend on oil, not just corporations?

You do realize that there is no oil in Afghanistan or Vietnam and they have almost nothing else of value to take over?

You do realize that we lost money by controlling Iraq and that some oilfield contracts are going to non-American companies?

 

[ammo]

you do realize that corporations and the banking cartels are using the U S flag and it's military to line their pockets and leaving the americans without enough jobs/money to pay for gas /oil,that Obama and DC are just puppets working for the large money concerns,and that the people who deny this will no doubt reelect the rep and dem parties to carry on ,would you over pay a lawn service to cut the neighbors to your left and right and let your lawn go to weeds,and once you noticed your mistake would you rehire them,repeat it( remember a rumor during our time in vietnam that said there was more oil under vietnam than we had so far burnt,never heard any thing since,don't know if it was true)