Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Iran is not the same league of threat as the soviet union. Is that hard to understand?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
george_maniakes Donating Member (831 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 06:13 PM
Original message
Iran is not the same league of threat as the soviet union. Is that hard to understand?
Why do hillary people keep up the hate? Because there is no way you can confuse the two unless your digging for horseapples where there arent any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sfaprog Donating Member (353 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. They have NO foreign policy legs to stand on, fuck'em
Clinton's repeated war votes cannot be taken back. You can't say "do over, not fair". You fucked up, voted for war, and now people are dying are our economy is being drained.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. They thought their candidate was inevitable
Thats why
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
george_maniakes Donating Member (831 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. well i say they should get over it and stop the bullshit.
iran is a threat, no shit, but it aint no soviet union. How blinded by hate for obama do you have to be to confuse the two?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NotThisTime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. The McCain camp is throwing this out there to scare the American Public, sorry, it's not the same
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Median Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. Its At Least As Bad As Iraq, And We Invaded Iraq...
Edited on Mon May-19-08 06:35 PM by Median Democrat
Therefore, since we invaded Iraq on the basis of their development of WMD, as well as the dangers of appeasement (Bush speech before invasion in 2003 specifically referred to Nazis - look it up!), then according to Hillary Clinton/John McCain/George Bush, then the US should seriously consider the option of invading Iran.

Obama is out numbered 3 to 1. Seriously, Obama supporters, how can you distinguish the Iran from Iraq? How can you Obama supporters argue that it is okay to invade Iraq, but not invade Iran.

The Hillary supporters might have the better argument here based on recent US invasion precedent.

Don't believe me? Here is George Bush's comments 48 hours before invading Iraq. Just switch "Iraq" with "Iran" and the same anti-appeasement argument for invasion can be made:

* * *



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/2003031...

President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall

Video (Real)
Audio
Photos
En Español



8:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

* * *

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

* * *

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

* * *

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

* * *

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

* * *
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
george_maniakes Donating Member (831 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. So because america fucked up by invading iraq, they should invade iran too? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Median Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Are You Disagreeing That Iran Is At Last As Bad As Iraq?
Edited on Mon May-19-08 10:23 PM by Median Democrat
Isn't this Hillary and McCain's Argument re Iran, i.e., that their experience with Iraq makes them the superior choice over Obama? I mean you can toss out "Iraq" from Bush's invasion speech and replace it with "Iran," and you have President Bush's current stance with Iran. So, given that Iran is at least as bad as Iraq, which did not even have WMDs, let alone a nuclear program, shouldn't we also invade Iran? I mean we went to war on much less evidence in Iraq, and Iran does admit that it is pursuing a nuclear program albeit for energy use.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain have experience dealing with hard choices surrounding the invasion Iraq, which makes them ideally situtated to confront the choices posed by Iran.

C'mon Hillary supporters, back me up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
25. The problem with your post is that invading Iraq was a bad idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
6. Al Queda killed more Americans on 9/11 than the Soviet Union ever did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
americanstranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. So, Al Qaeda = Iran in your miserable little world?
You must really be a Republican.

- as
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-20-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. Don't be an idiot. How can you jump to that conclusion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Iran (and Iraq) had nothing to do with 9-11.
I know you people keep forgetting that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-20-08 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. Al Qeada did, where do you get the idea that Iran or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?
I know you're not that fuckin' stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. The thread is about Iran
and you chime in with the al-Qaeda comment, as usual without saying anything else. Maybe you should try explaining your cryptic snark every once in a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Median Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I Thought Al Queda Was Sunni and Iran Shiite . . .
Or, is it okay to lump them together?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. There were no terrorist in Iraq before we invaded.
The 'Insurgents' in Iraq are in truth mostly private Iraqi citizens, people like you and me, that want us, the United States to leave.

al-Qaita started in Afghanistan back by the CIA against Russia. Now they are a catch all term for whatever action against our military that the White House want to blame them with.

The bu$h administration allowed 9/11 to happen as an excuse for their war of choice in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia don't seem to be the bu$h family friends any more.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
george_maniakes Donating Member (831 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Um, al-qaeda=sunni. Iran=shiite. So what on earth are you talking about? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-20-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. I am talking about the fact that the threat to us is not based on military spending or the amount
of nuclear weapons some country has. Do you think France is a threat to us?

Box cutters are pretty cheap, Iran doesn't need 50 MIRV's to be a grave threat, just ask Obama -

"Iran is a grave threat," Obama said in Billings, Montana. "It has an illicit nuclear program, it supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq, it threatens Israel’s existence, it denies the holocaust...."

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/05/19/obama-iran-is-a-grave-threat-because-of-bush-policy/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. And nobody's saying that Iran isn't a grave threat. It is nothing compared to the Soviet Union.
(And if you want to count Total Westerners Killed, I think the Cold War and its various flashpoints kick Al-Qaeda's ass up and down history.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. yeah, DU hasn't changed a bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. You are as stupid as they get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-20-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Stop forking around, how many Americans did the USSR kill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. How many Americans did the Iranians kill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thewiseguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. And you are the one who opens up threads on foreign policy matters?
:rofl:

You have got no freaking clue. Absolutely pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
23. Nazi Germany killed more Americans than al-Qaeda ever did. Your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
14. Cuz they're whoring for PNAC bux and votes.
Pure and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC