Nuclear armed Islam

J

Josiah

Senior Member
Location
50 miles east of Cincinnati, OH
I am in favor of completing a treaty with Iran which would allow international inspectors to guarantee Iran's pledge not to develop a nuclear weapon. I am decidedly against bombing the Iranian's nuclear facilities which seems to be the preferred option of those in this country who have tried to sabotage the ongoing negotiations. I might point out that Pakistan not the most stable and piece loving of Islamic states has had nuclear weapons for more than twenty years and people seem to tolerate that situation. Some Republicans who rightly admit that just bombing Iran's facilities wouldn't prevent their developing a bomb want the US to go to war with Iran. Won't that be fun.
 

Last edited:
I read a fascinating article in Huffington Post that points to Saudi Arabia attacking Yemen with the goal of keeping the US from coming to a better relationship with Iran. I'd have to read it again but I think their fear is that America will begin to realize that Iran is a better 'partner' than the Saudi's are because Iranians are educated and urbane, etc, and they have loads of oil.

So when Yemen's elected president was chased out as a result of the Houthi's coupe (where have we heard this story before???) the Saudi's attacked because they prefer the Yemeni president (who is Sunni like the Saudies) who ran, America is giving quiet assent to their actions and the Saudi's have long been working hard to link Iran as a key supporter of the Yemeni Shiite.

The ME is literally like the ball of yarn that cats have been playing with for years! Which string goes where and who it's tied to you know!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-sahimi/saudi-attack-yemen-iran-west_b_6965542.html


I also read an interesting article that talks about the concessions that Iran has already made that on the face of it, seem to indicate that their focus is nuclear for civil purposes rather than military. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-sahimi/iran-nuclear-talks-fail_b_6219646.html
 
Last edited:
The ME is literally like the ball of yarn that cats have been playing with for years! Which string goes where and who's it tied to you know!
Click to expand...

An appropriate metaphor.

We all lived through the Cold War. We should have learned something from that time.
 

Theocracies are probably the most dangerous of all entities, even Hitler believed that God had picked him to straighten out the world...
 
On the other hand.. Israel has the "bomb".. Pakistan has the "bomb" India has the "bomb" Iran is not some little Podunk country.. It's a very big developed country. (by middle east standards) I can understand them wanting what the others have. What makes everyone think that the minute they have it they will use it?
 
I just can't understand how significant numbers of Americans having recently lived through the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which instead of fixing the Middle East has only made matters worse, are now willing to consider using military force in yet another country in the ME. I mean the war sentiment polls change so rapidly, you would think that the subject being polled was Dancing with the Stars contestants.
 
You have to remember the vast Military/industrial complex making BILLIONS from war.. Not just weapons, but all sorts of supplies and contractors. These corporations donate to campaign funds and PACS... and they expect to be kept in business. Look at Senator Cotton.. meeting immediately with EIC and a million dollar donation following the ill advised letter to Iran

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/11/1370312/-ECI-PAC-Gives-Freshman-Senator-a-Million-Dollars#

The 15 year long war in the ME has made countless billionaires... AND look what Cheney was able to make for Halliburton during the Iraq fiasco. AND people continue to vote for these morons... boggles the mind.
 
One thing the US and other countries did after WWII ended, was to hang around in strength till those countries showed lots of stability and willingness to live peacefully. We did not do that in Iraq and it looks like we will not do that in Afghanistan either. It appears that we did not learn from our experiences after WWII. The groups of countries willing to put an end to criminal governments and help the UN to get peace in the area should have stayed on a peacekeeper just as we did after WWII. Instead, we walked away and have left it all go back into the hands of the crazies once again. We know who did that as they are still in office.
 
BobF said:
One thing the US and other countries did after WWII ended, was to hang around in strength till those countries showed lots of stability and willingness to live peacefully. We did not do that in Iraq and it looks like we will not do that in Afghanistan either. It appears that we did not learn from our experiences after WWII. The groups of countries willing to put an end to criminal governments and help the UN to get peace in the area should have stayed on a peacekeeper just as we did after WWII. Instead, we walked away and have left it all go back into the hands of the crazies once again. We know who did that as they are still in office.
Click to expand...

YES... we KNOW who did that... and he is NOT in office.. lol!!!

The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq began in December 2007 with the end of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and was completed by December 2011, bringing an end to the Iraq War. The number of U.S. military forces in Iraq peaked at 170,300 in November 2007.
The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq was a contentious issue in the United States for much of the 2000s. As the war progressed from its initial invasion phase in 2003 to a nearly decade-long occupation, American public opinion shifted towards favoring a troop withdrawal; in May 2007, 55% of Americans believed that the Iraq War was a mistake, and 51% of registered voters favored troop withdrawal.[SUP][7][/SUP] In late April 2007 Congress passed a supplementary spending bill for Iraq that set a deadline for troop withdrawal but President Bush vetoed this bill, citing his concerns about setting a withdrawal deadline.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] The Bush Administration later sought an agreement with the Iraqi government, and in 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory".[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP] The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP] .
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

Bob You really need to check your facts BEFORE you post... and stop just making things up...
 
I was not making things up as those that caused the big fuss are still in a controlling position as I stated. This so called 'for peace' bunch are mostly of the far left folks that are still in office as I stated. The Democrats controlled then and are still running this government. Next election that may or may not change. Holler at me so I holler back at you. Know your facts before ranting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress

110th United States Congress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

110th United States Congress
109th ←→ 111th

United States Capitol (2007)
Duration: January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2009
Senate President:Dick Cheney (R)
Senate Pres. pro tem:Robert Byrd (D)
House Speaker:Nancy Pelosi (D)
Members:100 Senators
435 Representatives
5 Non-voting members
Senate Majority:Democratic Party (coalition)
House Majority:Democratic Party
Sessions
1st: January 4, 2007 – December 19, 2007
2nd: January 3, 2008 – January 3, 2009[SUP][1][/SUP]
The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of President George W. Bush. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. census.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes. No Democratic-held seats had fallen to the Republican Party in the 2006 elections.[SUP][2][/SUP] Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House.[SUP][3][/SUP] The House also received the first Muslim (Keith Ellison)[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] and Buddhist (Hank Johnson and Mazie Hirono)[SUP][6][/SUP] members of Congress.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top