[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
By golly, you do understand! Next time, just go with your first instincts.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you know, a careful reading of what I was saying would point the derision and scorn at…
Oh nevermind.
[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
My derision and scorn is directed at you because I think most of the statements you are making in this thread are dangerously ludicrous, delusional, and out of touch with reality.
[/QUOTE]
I find the irony of you, who is going along with this conspiricy theory on such flimsy evidence, telling me I’m ‘dangerously ludicrous, delusional, and out of touch with reality’…well, its pretty much off the scale. It gets better though…
[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
You say there’s no way Bush will go to war with Iran, and then say “Well, just a little bombing isn’t really war.” If they bombed us, you say, it would be an act of war, but if we bomb them, it’s not. And yet, when the tables were turned—when the US was the subject of a “surgical strike” designed to destroy weapons that our attackers believed posed a threat to them and their allies—what was our response? All-out war. Why do you think the Iranians would act any differently than we did?
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry. I should have been clearer about the whole Japan/Pearl Harbor thing. Instead of trying to be subtle and make you look like an idiot I should have come right out and said what I mean. Japan declared war on the US just after its attack. The US declared war on Japan also. Japan wasn’t attempting to preform a ‘surgical strike’ on the fleet…it was mounting a crippling attack before going to full scale war with the US. There was never any expectation of attacking our fleet and then negotiating a settlement. Your analogy, in short, is ridiculous and makes you look the same.
As to a surgical strike on Iran by the US, as I’ve said and you’ve thus far failed to comprehend, I don’t know what the result would be. Listen closely: That’s why I think its a BAD IDEA. Get it? It MIGHT simply be a repeat of surgical strikes the US has carried out in the past. Or it MIGHT mean further incursions by Iran (maybe openly) into Iran. Its hard to tell…but its certainly not a foregone conclusion either way. Iran has limited options in dealing with the US on a purely military level…they know it and we do. The caviot being…we are currently committed in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. Both countries are teetering on the brink (IMHO), and a more concerted effort by Iran may push it over the top. Again, we know that and so do they.
[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
And all of that is ignoring the elephant in the room. What we’re contemplating here is an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country. Bomb, invasion, doesn’t matter. Iran hasn’t done anything to us, and the people who are claiming that Iran has done something to provoke us are proven liars who have gotten us into a heap of trouble with their lies. And the way they got us into our current heap of trouble looks a lot like what’s going on right now. Only you, xtimse, don’t seem to see that, and when it’s pointed out to you, you’re downplaying it, spinning it, making excuses for it, and calling me names. Kind of like you did the last time.
[/QUOTE]
And you are supposedly grounded in reality and you have to ask this question? Why are we contemplating an ‘unprovoked attack’? Perhaps it has to do with their nuclear program? Its not in the US (or many other countries) best interest for Iran to get a nuclear weapon…for a whole host of reasons. Whether YOU believe that is true or not the people who are in charge of the country (and several other countries) disagree…and their say means more than your’s (or mine) when it comes to making and implimenting policy.
The rest of your rant is again you spewing out from your tape recorder about this ficticious ‘neocon’ you think I am, so I won’t bother addressing it. I’ve said what I’ve said…if you want to quote specific things I’ve said and discuss them I’m at your disposal. If you want to keep building strawmen about me then I’ll just keep bringing the matches.
[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
BTW, the US did indeed bomb Sudan during the Clinton presidency.
[/QUOTE]
You are quite right…I thought those strikes into the Sudan were during the Bush I administration. I stand corrected.
I don’t suppose you see the irony in providing a cite for US surgical strikes that didn’t escelate into all out war…or into anything else for that matter? Probably not.
[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
I agree with this, but I suspect when “the situation changes” with some kind of Gulf of Tonkin incident, you’ll come around to war pretty quick. And then, once we’re in the thick of things, we’ll find out that the Gulf of Tonkin didn’t really happen. That’s this administration’s standard operating procedure.
[/QUOTE]
You really love building these strawmen, don’t you?
[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
The Senate passed a resolution today condemning Iran and declaring their revolutionary guard a terrorist organization. What makes you think the rhetoric has eased? Bush will wait until he can get maximum political advantage out of it before he attacks, just like he did last time.
[/QUOTE]
The Sentate controlled by the Democrat’s? Regardless, I actually meant from Iran’s side the rhetoric has come down quite a bit. And they have done a lot (though not nearly enough IMHO) to open up their nuclear program to inspection.
Here is the thing. The US isn’t going to attack Iran if they are looking meek and pathetic…especially if they are not just going through the motions of being open and helpful.
YMMV…but I think I’m pretty well grounded in reality here when I say the US will definitely not invade Iran and that we probably won’t be bombing them or doing surgical strikes either. And that there is a distinct difference between those two levels of violence. Something you don’t seem to have a good grasp on.
-XT
