 |
It took this Israeli newspaper an extra day to get hold of this item but I find it incrediable that we haven't heard anything about this before
Bin Laden living in lap of luxury in Iran? - Israel News, Ynetnews
Okay now we know Ahmamadjihad has been hiding Bin Laden, will the US attack Iran as they did Iraq. I want to know if the US still has that fire and conviction about the war on terror?
Im not so sure this president would do anything other then solicit them for donations to his next campaign. At best he might send a drone through. But I don't think he has the cahones to send in troops.
So you think this might be the start of the drone wars? It is doubtful the US has the ability to put the number of troops on the ground that would be needed since Iran has a large army and plenty of missile strike capability. Now we know why Ahamadjihad needs nuclear weapons and why he has been jittery about being surrounded by US forces, Obama couldn't expect help from Pakistan that would devistate their already crumbling economy and having destroyed Iraq america has no ally on the other side. Just shows you what a poor strategic thinker Bush was or was he outsmarted by a crafty ArabQuote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
The last time something like this had come up it was cruize missles. They missed but took out Kadaffi's family instead. Its hard to say what may or may not happen because this president thinks its better to bow and say sorry to everyone then to do anything proactive. There is no telling but if the current situation is any indication then they will send drones like they have been doing in afghanistan.
I hope this finally puts to rest this fiction we've heard about Sunni and Shia being mortal enemies who find it impossible to work together.
The homicidal delusional dictator ,the Mahdi-hatter, had an opening comedy act at the UN conference on nuclear nonproliferation that US Sec State Evita found hard to top.
US UN rep.Susan Rice added to the act by walking from the room in a huff.
It is important to maintain the illusion that the US opposes the mad Mullahs while the President exchanges undisclosed letters to and from Tehran. Perhaps he also sent his regards to OBL .
We will officially still oppose proliferation while in reality we have accepted Iran into the nuclear club, and are instead opting for a vague , confusing and undefined policy of containment .
Heard John Bolton on the radio this week (boy do we need him at the UN now !) . He described the Obama policy well and gave the proper caution to it's folly. The Obots think they can manage containment like the US managed the containment policies of the Cold War.
But ;compared to the Mahdi-hatter and the 12ers running Tehran ,Stalin was a rational player.His moves and reactions were predictable .Stalin knew and understood that crossing the Rubicon was unacceptable .Evidently the Obots think Ahmamadjihad is Stalin in a cheap dinner jacket .
Without nukes the 12ers are a bunch of sadistic suicidal bullies with a cultish ideology ;but not really a threat to anyone but their immediate neighbors and the unfortunate citizens of Persia. With nukes they become a regional superpower who existentially threatens it's neighbors. With nukes, what we will see is a replay of some 20th century folly we'd rather not repeat. Chamberlain thought Hitler could be dealt with too.
Ahamadjihad is not Hitler, it is important to recognise this and he has plenty of oil something that sets him apart from 20th century Germany. He doesn't need to be adventurist and aside from southern Iraq, a virtual waste land, he has no fellow religionists to bring into his persian paradise. He also lacks the industrial base Hitler had, something that has already prevented him from being expansionist. For the time being he is safe behind the bastion of distance and sandQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Really ? He has already expanded through proxies into Lebanon,and Gaza . He has his military active in Iraq as you mentioned and also Adfganistan.
Iran has influence with the Shia population in all the Gulf States.
He has Qod shock forces inside Central America and as a result the persecution of Jews in Latin America is on the rise. Iranian uranium mining operations run by their paramilitary is ongoing in Venezuela and Bolivia.
You say he is not Hitler ? Hitler was not Hitler in 1936 either . His little moves like the reoccupation of the Rhineland ,if opposed, would've stopped him in his tracks. As you recall ,that are is primarily where the industrial base of Germany resided ,and one of the major reasons for his expansion was his lack of resources .Blitzkrieg was an economical form of warfare that made allowances for ,and compensated for a lack of the resources needed to conduct wars of attrition.
The lesson is the same .You cannot allow a mad meglomaniac ,who has announced his intention to dominate his region and exterminate his enemies ,the time to achieve his goals . Stopping them early saves lives .
Here we go again the doctrine of preemption. If we think you are a threat, you are a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Look I don't have any doubt Ahamadjihad is a serious problem and even more likely to be behind terrorism than Saddam was. His support of Hezbollah alone is a problem that has already sparked a war, however the US know this and have taken no action even though they have more provocation than there was with Iraq. What I see is this Iraq was weak and a target of opportunity, Iran is not. We now have the real possibility that Iran has given santuary to OBL, even the suspicion that might be possible was a reason for invading Iraq and here we have not just a smoking gun and what does the US do, look the other way. It seems you only have an appatite for wars you can win
No we had regime change here regretably .I still favor the preemtion doctrine .
So your argument is that no one should've taken steps to stop Hitler while he was weak ? Neville Chamberlain must be your hero.
Tom you seem to forget that Chamberlain was negotiating because Britain didn't have manpower to conquer Germany, they were unprepared and having been though one disastrous war they didn't want another. You would make a poor armchair general. The rise of Hitler was direct result of policies put in place by the victorous allys. It wasn't as easy to impose sanctions in those days as it is now. They didn't conquer Germany in 1918 and they paid for it later, just as they didn't conquer Iraq in 1990 and they had to do the job later, whose poor thinking was that? I see that Ahamadjihad is a problem which might have to be dealt with, but unlike Saddam he hasn't directly attacked anyone yetQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:02 PM. |