Kucinich: NDAA Authorizes War Against Iran

[Mr. DJ]

Hard to say really...Iran is too unstable to be allowed to have nuclear warheads, and if they were to get them, they'd more than likely use it on our allies than us...at least at first.

Don't think we can afford a ground war...

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Mr. DJ

Hard to say really...Iran is too unstable to be allowed to have nuclear warheads, and if they were to get them, they'd more than likely use it on our allies than us...at least at first.

It cracks me up everytime I hear how unstable Iran is, which has had an stable goverment (not a democracy, but neither we had one here in Mexico for most part of the 20th century) since the fall of the Sha, but nobody is paying attention to Pakistan, which goes from military rule to democracy like a jojo and HAS nuclear warheads and misiles to deploy them (no irs, ands or buts) and they keep moving them so at any given moment nobody knows where they are.

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by Mr. DJ

Hard to say really...Iran is too unstable to be allowed to have nuclear warheads

I'll throw the glove:

Who is the authority on this world who should, and who shouldn't have nuclear weapons?

what control do you have over a sovereign state? Would you allow foreign meddling in your affairs?
(We would like to see a few US warcriminals turned over to the INTERNATIONAL court tyvm,... oh wait, you don't allow that)

Every nation has the right to be able to defend itself from aggressors
and when an aggressor has nukes, it pays for your nation safety/freedom to have them as well

(BTW I'm still waiting for that proof of WMDs in Iraq)

[sa547]

In terms of strategy and military posturing and economic stability, the US is in a more awkward position than ever before. War-weariness has taken a toll on most citizens and thus naturally oppose any further large-scale military intervention, but unfortunately this is the very thing that potential hostile states are now taking advantage of.

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

nation has the right to be able to defend itself from aggressors

So based on Iran's comments on Israel, would you really say that they're "defending themselves from aggressors"? Your argument only goes so far as real life.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

So based on Iran's comments on Israel, would you really say that they're "defending themselves from aggressors"? Your argument only goes so far as real life.

If you means the "Israel must be wiped off the map" comment. Then that one was (conveniently) mistranslated

The actual comment was something closer to "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time" or simply "end that regime" without notion of using military intervention or military threat toward the state / people of Israel

[JC...]

Let's see now.

- Israel has the ability to launch nuclear weapons.
- Iran has no nuclear weapons at this point in time.
- Iran is surrounded by US military bases and the US has sent an extra fleet of ships and aircraft to the Persian Gulf and the surrounding areas.
- The United States has the highest military budget in the world and Israel is threatening to strike Iran.

I'm pretty sure Iran is not the aggresive one here, yes they're challenging the 'big boys' but I think they have a right to.

[Haak]

It's hard to say at this point but I think Iran were the aggressors towards Israel at first since they've been sponsoring Hezbollah, which considers Israel to be an illegitimate state and has called for it's destruction.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by JC...

Israel is threatening to strike Iran.

If Israel could do it, they'd have done so. See the strikes against Iraq and Syria to stop their programs. They can't, so they're trying to raise a big fuss over it in hopes the US takes care of this for them.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

If Israel could do it, they'd have done so. See the strikes against Iraq and Syria to stop their programs. They can't, so they're trying to raise a big fuss over it in hopes the US takes care of this for them.

Well yeah, unless they got permission from Turkey, Saudi to get their flight going.

Otherwise, i don't think Jordan or Syria (and Iraq) allow Israel bombers fly over their territories. Even if Iran just pack up their air-defending missiles and draw a big "bomb here" sign over their nuclear facilities

And the distances also might be too large for them to operate refueling operations and do so effectively

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

So based on Iran's comments on Israel, would you really say that they're "defending themselves from aggressors"? Your argument only goes so far as real life.

"Real life, welcome to it"

We can argue about rightiousness, propaganda and political BS all year long
the hard fact is: If you were in a government you wouldn't do anyting differently
When it comes to defending your nation, you'd either ally yourself with a nation that has 'the ultimate deterrent for war'
or you try to build/buy the buggers yourself
Since nobody wants to ally with Iran, they're opting for the latter


-on a side note:
Iran has nuclear capability, or the US would already be shipping out their oil and selling the country by the square mile

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Haak

It's hard to say at this point but I think Iran were the aggressors towards Israel at first since they've been sponsoring Hezbollah, which considers Israel to be an illegitimate state and has called for it's destruction.

The reason hezbollah exists at all is because Israel has invaded Palestine (which they call a territory) and has disobeyed several orders from the U.N. to retreat. If same thing happened to your country would you be surprised that a resistance group was formed, that they acted tough saying they will destroy the invaders, calling them names (i.e. illegitimate) and accept economical help from whatever country that offers some? Calling hezbollah the bad dudes is like calling the french resistance a terrorist group.

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

-on a side note:
Iran has nuclear capability, or the US would already be shipping out their oil and selling the country by the square mile

Iraq had no nuclear weapons yet still the US needed to invade them to " ship their oil and sell the countru by the square mile".

[Haak]

Even if that is the whole story, Israel have already retreated from Lebanon (I'm pretty sure you meant Lebanon) whilst Hezbollah are still belligerent.

And Israel currently occupies Palestine which the UN isn't damanding a full and immediate retreat.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Haak

Even if that is the whole story, Israel have already retreated from Lebanon (I'm pretty sure you meant Lebanon) whilst Hezbollah are still belligerent.

Israel is still belligerent so why the surprise_face.jpg?

And Israel currently occupies Palestine which the UN isn't damanding a full and immediate retreat.

Resolution 242 do calls for a full retreat; it does not call for an immediate retreat because the USA would have vetoed such a resolutionm, heck, if resolution 242 required today a new vote the USA would veto it as-is.

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Calling hezbollah the bad dudes is like calling the french resistance a terrorist group.

Oh, but did the French Resistance rocket bomb residential zones? What about the multiple attacks on U.S. embassies and military bases?

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

Oh, but did the French Resistance rocket bomb residential zones? What about the multiple attacks on U.S. embassies and military bases?

Had the third reich won the war and the french resistance continued for several decades, wouldn't you think their next logical targets would have been residential zones, embassies and militar bases of the reich (and their allies) all over the world?

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Had the third reich won the war and the french resistance continued for several decades, wouldn't you think their next logical targets would have been residential zones, embassies and militar bases of the reich (and their allies) all over the world?

Does that separate them from being a terrorist group just by their cause that outsiders judge to be "better"?

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

Oh, but did the French Resistance rocket bomb residential zones? What about the multiple attacks on U.S. embassies and military bases?

Irrelevant, first of all the chance that others french people were hit was high, that's not really the case for Isreal/Palestine since the latter are confined in a "open prison".

But I'm sure you would have given us 60 years it would have happened. Don't worry I thank everybody for not giving us so much time and so I can only understand Palestinian point of view, as much as I understand the Israeli. As for attacking the US, though I heavily condamn such actions, if US wouldn't protect Isreal of all UN condamnation or any forms of anti-Isreal (we return to this stupid veto thing but we already got this discussion), I'm sure US wouldn't be attacked.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

Does that separate them from being a terrorist group just by their cause that outsiders judge to be "better"?

Are you talking about the arabs or the jews? It is no secret that after WWII but before the creation of the state of Israel the terrorist acts were commited by the jews against the palestines (foreign embassies, civil targets, military bases, etc).

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

-on a side note:
Iran has nuclear capability, or the US would already be shipping out their oil and selling the country by the square mile

Contrary to popular belief, the US is capable of acting rationally. There's no benefit for the US to attack Iran besides shutting up morons. These morons are not annoying enough to make it worth the cost. Besides Iran holds a major deterrent without nukes. They can shut down the strait or Hormuz. You don't need a nuke to not be attacked, you just need to not be worth the effort, and Iran is not worth the effort.