adiabat: He's wrong. We should annihilate Iran, then invade Syria.
Problem Solved.

Which problem would that solve, exactly?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Neocons have lost their right to be heard. They have been consistently wrong on everything.

With what army?

So, let me get this straight: In order to successfully end one war, he wants to start another one next door?

At what point does stupidity turn into insanity?

costermonger wins, hands down.

costermonger: Well, I think it would solve the problem of Iraq being the biggest clusterfark in the Middle East quite handily.


We should just blow up the moon. That'd show 'em.

ozone: too many dark skinned people living on top of our oil.

Exactly - their job is to ripen it for us, then back off.

EvilEgg: Yeah because taking over the entire world would stop international terrorism. Then all we would have to work on is domestic terrorism. Problem solved.

Speaking of which, I would have loved to have seen a Crusader 3.

adiabat
He's wrong. We should annihilate Iran, then invade Syria.

It's a good thing Iran doesn't have an equivalent to MEMRI, or you'd be an example of the insane brutality of the common Westerner.

Why does it matter if Iran gets nukes or not?

Did we attack the Soviet Union when they got nukes? No, because we knew that would start World War III and millions would die. Same goes for Iran.

Did the Soviet Union attack us when they got nukes? No, because they knew that would start World War III and millions would die. Same goes for Iran.

Now, of course Iran getting nukes is not a good thing, but it's most certainly not worth going to war over.

Besides, all this assumes Iran really is building nuclear weapons (and not just nuclear power plants as they say they are)-which has not been proven.

pat buchanan is very often a douche, but in terms of the middle east/afghanistan fiasco, i think he hit it right on the head. now granted, hindsight is 20/20, but it's the best "what we should have done" i've heard so far.

we should have gone into afghanistan, completely and thoroughly wiped out the taliban, spent all the billions we're spending in iraq every day on helping to rebuild afghanistan as a model in the region. stay there, finish the job, completely annihilate the bad guys, then from there we have leverage and respect for anywhere else.

if we felt at that point, we needed to go into iraq, than we could point to the complete lack of taliban and say "that's what's going to happen to saddam" and we could point to the prosperity of the normal person and win the hearts and minds that way. instead of just going here, farking up, going there, farking up.

TFA: A free Iran would most likely become an instant ally in the war against terror...

Wow... That's some powerful Kool-Aid.

I really hope Bush is held in check for the next two years...

Also, we should not go to war with Iran for any other reason-unless they (or a proxy, such as Hezbollah) attack us first. And by "us", I do not mean "Israel".

Let's jsut occupy every nation with a muslim majority. They'll greet us as liberators!

The mentality behind this is very simple:

If we keep blowing them up, eventually everyone who doesn't like us will go away. Or at least be very, very quiet.

That's IT. That is the entire neo-con mentality regarding foreign policy. Anything else is just words to try to cover the all-encompassing, gut-wrenching FEAR these people have that someone, somewhere, might think differently than us.

The fact of the matter is, we have enough power to sterilize the entire planet. Is it theoretically possible that Iran could get the nuke and take out New York? Sure. And in retaliation, we would DESTROY THEIR ENTIRE COUNTRY.

Attacking the US on a large scale is suicide. We are all but untouchable because of it. And before you scream, "But 9/11!" take a look at what's happened since. We bombed to hell and took over TWO ENTIRE COUNTRIES in retaliation. Notice the lack of more 9/11s.

Yet, these people still FEAR and fear mightily.

Why?

cranberryzero: pat buchanan is very often a douche, but in terms of the middle east/afghanistan fiasco, i think he hit it right on the head. now granted, hindsight is 20/20, but it's the best "what we should have done" i've heard so far.

Of course, Pat Buchanan's hindsight is the same thing that liberals have been saying for the past... 4-5 years or so.

But why should anyone pay attention to us libs. We're too busy sucking it.

Unright

No, no, no. You don't understand. We're the reason the war is going badly. We didn't clap loud enough.

EvilEgg

He got the idea watching coverage of forrest fire fighting. The Iran thing would be a controled burn.

There's that word, "controlled"...

What in hell makes these dumbasses think smashing Iran would be any more "controlled" than smashing Iraq?

A "controlled burn" that gets out of hand simply adds to the wildfire. It's a shame his Discovery Channel show didn't cover that part.

cranberryzero

Actually he said that way before we went into Iraq.

October 21 2002
"We see the next Hitler in Saddam," write Stevens and Warner. Well, let's see. Hitler conquered all of Europe from the Arctic to the Aegean and from the Atlantic to Stalingrad. And Saddam?

He invaded Kuwait, a sandbox half the size of Denmark, and got tossed out after a 100-hour ground war. His country has been overflown 40,000 times by U.S. and British planes, and he has not been able to shoot a single plane down. He has no navy, a fourth-rate air force, and a shrunken, demoralized army. His economy is not 1 percent of ours.

No, senators, this is not the Fuehrer and the Republican Guard is not the Wehrmacht. As Marx said, history repeats itself - first as tragedy, then as farce.

http://www.theamericancause.org/patissaddamanother.htm


December 23 2002

Yet, our obsession with Saddam Hussein seems to be blinding the president and the administration to greater and more imminent dangers.

Afghanistan is far from pacified. Al-Qaida elements are back in the country. President Karzai has survived one assassination attempt and several plots. Iran, whose oil resources are abundant, plans to build two new nuclear power plants that produce weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. Its missile-building program is far ahead of that of Saddam Hussein's.

http://www.theamericancause.org/pat2003.htm

January 29 2003

"Though Iraq does not threaten us, has not attacked us, cannot defeat us, and does not want war with us, the United States is about to invade and occupy that country. If we do, it will be the first purely imperial war in our history, a war launched to reshape the domestic politics and foreign policy of another nation to conform to our own. "


http://www.theamericancause.org/patisgeorgewanimperialist.htm

I thought the whole problem was that none of the neocons read history.

It requires an Iran/Syria policy. Iran declared war against us 27 years ago and has waged it relentlessly, but we have yet to respond.

Yes, you jackass!, Did it take the five years since Sept 11 to figure that out?! Now we're stuck in Iraq, we have no room to move, even though we're right next door to both.

Finally, someone who sees the light. Drastic times call for drastic measures.
We should immediately increase troop levels in preparation for invading Iran. We should expect drastic casualties, but in preparation for this, the media should be controlled with an iron fist. We will no longer tolerate any negative press regarding this mission of democracy. It may be necessary to incarcerate and or execute a few journalists to make examples of them.
Any mass protests at home will be met with water cannons and brute force. We will no longer tolerate the weak minded Left and their appeasement of Al Quaeda.
It may also be necessary to reinstitute the draft. Martial law should also be an option, as should suspension of elections. Failure is not an option.
/skookum switch off

submitter: NeoCon who doesn't read history

Apparently he hasn't read a newspaper in the last three years, either.

only a sith deals in absolutes

Pat Buchanan is an ultra-nationalist, semi-racist, isolationist. That is, he doesn't give a shiat about the rest of the world outside the United States, provided they don't try to immigrate to the US. So, naturally, he thinks invading random countries in the Middle East is wrong. I'm an isolationist, at least militarily, as well, so I agree with him on Iraq, but he has some rather vile viewpoints on other topics.

Dancin_In_Anson: And that's what it boils down to.

Or we declare victory and withdraw completely! Democracy established, Saddam and sons overthrown, no WMDs.

They wouldn't see that one coming!

We either declare defeat and withdraw completely tout de suite

Man, Republicans have been fond of that phrase lately.

Bill_Wick's_Friend: only a sith deals in absolutes

Probably the only thing I enjoyed about that movie was the irony of that quote.

HumbleGod: Probably the only thing I enjoyed about that movie was the irony of that quote.

What was ironic about it? The insertion of that exact quote was very intentional.

Paging Persepolis to the white courtesy phone, Persepolis to the white courtesy phone - you are needed in thread 2419262.

It's a lucky thing that no one in Iran remembers how we helped oust their last democratically elected government and replace it with a brutal dictator, or else they might really dislike us.

adiabat
He's wrong. We should annihilate Iran, then invade Syria.
Problem Solved.

Sadly, I get the feeling none of this is going to have a happy ending... and no in this situation you can't 'buy' a 'happy ending' for another $10...

/Iran not love us long time

"2006-11-16 02:19:44 PM elchip

What was ironic about it? The insertion of that exact quote was very intentional."

By saying ONLY a sith deals in absolutes, one is making an abosute statement. The statement is self-contradictory in it's face, and therefore ironic.

Dancin_In_Anson
What you guys don't seem to get is that there will be another large scale ground war in the Mid East with Iran at the forefront.

You probably right, but MAN I hope you're wrong...

Geotpf: By saying ONLY a sith deals in absolutes, one is making an abosute statement. The statement is self-contradictory in it's face, and therefore ironic.

Oh. Right.

What you guys don't seem to get is that there will be another large scale ground war in the Mid East with Iran at the forefront.

what you don't seem to get is that in the past three years pretty much every element of middle-eastern foriegn policy coming from the neocons in DC (and pretty much everything of theirs which you've echoed) has been as wrong as can be.

as such, it's entirely understandable why opinions such as the one in this piece (and yours) are rather easily dismissed.


headline is correct. the cheering you hear from that "plan" is indeed from al qaeda.

But Clinton!
Glass Parking Lot!
Why do you hate Amurka?
Suck it Libs!

// Any others?

Oh, come on. Lucas's dialogue is bad enough. Do we really need the Jedi saddled with, "Most of the time a Sith is generally likely to deal in absolutes!"

I think not.