Democrats and Iran: Look Who Supports Bush's Next War

[Paleocon]

The Bush Administration, which has avoided going through Congress to initiate its covert operations, is conducting this potential invasion much differently than the invasion of Iraq. The reasons may be political in nature. The US public, or at least those who opposed the Iraq war, made it somewhat difficult for Bush to instigate war against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Gathering in the streets, and later on Capitol Hill, they forced a public discussion, carefully scrutinizing Bush's motives. Now that many of Bush's claims about Iraq's WMD program and ties to al-Qaeda have been disproven (though Bush might beg to differ), Bush and company may be struggling to garner sufficient support to justify waging another war with an already strained military.

But the Bush administration may not have to worry about the opposition for round two. After all, the Democrats have long agreed that Iran must be dealt with militarily.


http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jfrank.php?articleid=4521


Shades of gray, that's all they are... It's not about a D or an R behind your name, it's about staying in power...

[LoZoccolo]

1. Before you go fuck with Democrats Mr. Paleocon, let's hear...

...your views on Iraq.

Do you believe we shouldn't have gone to Iraq because...

A. We were breaching trust that other nations have in us by breaking international law, or...
B. The Iraqis have an inferior culture to ours and can't handle democracy.

A paleocon believes B. I take it you do as well.

While I don't agree with the radical antiwar left, I am at least glad they don't oppose wars for the same reason your ilk does. I'm glad there's not shades of grey there.

[Paleocon]

4. That's easy...

We shouldn't have gone into Iraq because Iraq did not pose a threat to us.

You're a little "high-strung" huh?

Of course, North Korea didn't pose a real threat to us in the 1950's, Vietnam did not pose a threat to us in the 1960's, Yugoslavia did not pose a threat to us in the 1990's, nor did Iraq the first time around. Where else where we in that time? Grenada, Honduras, Nicargaua, Lebanon... etc...

That's my litmus test for whether it's a good idea to go around the globe attacking someone.

1. Did they attack me?
2. If they didn't, do I know beyond a reasonable doubt that they are going to?
3. Can I solve #2 with diplomacy? If not, attack away...

and as far as "B. The Iraqis have an inferior culture to ours and can't handle democracy."

No, that isn't it at all. You can't export democracy with force. If they want democracy, great, we should support that, but to send our troops there, look like asses in front of the world and get a lot of American kids shot up, killed and disabled... No, it's not worth it.

I'll thank you for not putting words into my mouth in the future.

[sandnsea]

7. Looks good on paper

As long as you're willing to give up coffee, bananas, chocolate, gold, diamonds, and a whole shit pot full of things that we have because of trade. Including cars and oil. As long as you're willing to turn your back on mass murder, genocide, life threatening poverty, slavery, and everything else the left says it cares about. I don't like the way the US and the west has conducted itself globally at all. But that's not to say we can just turn our backs on the entire world either. Slamming people who want to do the right thing and only use military intervention as an absolute last resort is foolish and only empowers Bush because those who would have a voice against it have been slaugtered from all directions.

[LoZoccolo]

11. Still, your criteria does not value peace nor human life.

Which I think the staunchly antiwar left at least tries to do, misguided as it might be.

[yurbud]

2. why are we more afraid of Iran with a handful of nukes than Soviet Union?

Do democrats really believe that another country would launch an attack that would lead to them being liteally burned off the map?

[LoZoccolo]

3. Because it would add to the number of nuclear powers.

That's the goal of nonproliferation, to stop that from happening.

[ulysses]

13. you support a war on Iran, then?

[LoZoccolo]

14. Maybe.

Let's see how things go. I'm most definately not against all war period, nor am I against doing something just because some far-left people would construe it as imperialist when they almost always do no matter what. I'm aware that it's sometimes true; I'm also aware that a broken clock is right twice a day.

[ulysses]

16. mind if I ask why?

I'm most definately not against all war period, nor am I against doing something just because some far-left people would construe it as imperialist when they almost always do no matter what.

Mind if I ask where we stop? *Do* we stop, or do we just rearrange the entire Middle East to your liking?

[LoZoccolo]

17. Because I like to see dead babies and bloody people.

You wanted it, you got it.

[ulysses]

18. I'm asking seriously.

What I wanted was a serious answer.

[LoZoccolo]

20. I already gave one.

To prevent nuclear proliferation.

[LoZoccolo]

19. I don't know; we're in a mess of shit right now.

I don't like war. I don't want to start a war with Iran. But I also don't want nuclear proliferation, nor do I want to multiply the problem by making people think we'll do nothing about it. Part of the reason I'm against the Iraq war is that it encouraged nuclear proliferation.

[ulysses]

21. but if invading Iraq encouraged proliferation,

why would invading Iran discourage it?

[LoZoccolo]

22. Iraq didn't have nukes, and we invaded outside of international law...

...as well as simple standards of fairness and honesty. North Korea and possibly Iran have nuclear programs, yet we don't invade, at least not as quickly. This teaches countries that the best way to prevent us from invading outside of international law as well as simple standards of fairness and honesty is to have nukes.

In answer to the second part of your question - invading Iran would stop its nuclear program.

The irony you point out is superficial at best.

[ulysses]

23. amazing.

Yes, we invaded Iraq outside international law. If we invade Iran, that will be outside international law as well.

North Korea and possibly Iran have nuclear programs, yet we don't invade, at least not as quickly.

Christ on a pogo stick - you want to invade N. Korea next? You've lost your damned mind.

This teaches countries that the best way to prevent us from invading outside of international law as well as simple standards of fairness and honesty is to have nukes.

And so, if we invade Iran, other countries will stop their nuke programs? Right.

In answer to the second part of your question - invading Iran would stop its nuclear program.

Perhaps, in the same way that invading Afghanistan stopped the terrorist training program there. Kinda. Of course, the rest just got moved in Iraq.

The irony you point out is superficial at best.

Not irony, simply common sense.

[LoZoccolo]

28. North Korea, etc.

you want to invade N. Korea next? You've lost your damned mind.

I don't know if they would have started their nuke program without us invading Iraq (another reason the Iraq invasion was stupid), but yes, when a country threatens to nuke LA and set our cities on fire, the option is on the table in my mind. We could probably invade North Korea on human rights grounds alone.

And so, if we invade Iran, other countries will stop their nuke programs? Right.

The fact that we invaded Iraq encouraged Libya to stop its nuclear program. I can't say this is a bad thing, despite the fact that overall I think the Iraq invasion was a bad idea. You could call that a "nuanced" position if you'd like.

Perhaps, in the same way that invading Afghanistan stopped the terrorist training program there. Kinda. Of course, the rest just got moved in Iraq.

Another reason the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea - at least until we took care of the more important stuff in Afganistan. I probably would have supported a multilateral regime change in Iraq on human rights grounds as a last resort sometime farther in the future, actually. This is another nuanced position.

[ulysses]

31. LOL!

We could probably invade North Korea on human rights grounds alone.

Since when have we *ever* invaded *anyone* on human rights grounds? Are you seriously suggesting that? What do you suppose China's reaction might be?

The fact that we invaded Iraq encouraged Libya to stop its nuclear program. I can't say this is a bad thing, despite the fact that overall I think the Iraq invasion was a bad idea. You could call that a "nuanced" position if you'd like.

Heh. I have another word for it, but I suspect you knew that.

I probably would have supported a multilateral regime change in Iraq on human rights grounds as a last resort sometime farther in the future, actually. This is another nuanced position.

An even more nuanced position would have been to not set Saddam in power in the first place.

[LoZoccolo]

33. Funny what you left out.

Since when have we *ever* invaded *anyone* on human rights grounds? Are you seriously suggesting that? What do you suppose China's reaction might be?

China didn't threaten to nuke LA, which you didn't mention as part of my post.

An even more nuanced position would have been to not set Saddam in power in the first place.

There is no time machine as far as I know.

[ulysses]

38. don't play dumb.

China didn't threaten to nuke LA, which you didn't mention as part of my post.

I should have been more specific. What do you suppose China's reaction might be to our invading North Korea. Please bear in mind their response the last time we did.

There is no time machine as far as I know.

No, there isn't, which is why it's important to learn the lessons of history.

[LoZoccolo]

42. I wasn't playing dumb.

I thought you were talking about human rights violations in China vs. North Korea.

I'm not saying it's the best idea; I'm just saying it may be justified in my mind. I am not a pacifist, but an interventionist, as I imagine most of the Democratic leadership to be, and as has been the Democratic tradition since FDR.

[ulysses]

47. ok, you're an interventionist.

Rightly applied, I think there are places and times where intervention is reasonable, just and necessary. Somalia. Rwanda would have been. Kosovo.

The proposed intervention has to pass the smell test, though, and Iraq *never* did. Iran doesn't now. Fact is that I wouldn't trust this administration to rescue a kitten from a tree, much less bring about a more stable Middle East through military intervention. I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to give Bush any kind of free hand in this area.

[Paleocon]

35. I think you are missing LoZoccolo's point...

Perpetual war = Perpetual peace....

:think:

[LoZoccolo]

37. Never said that.

However, maybe I had it coming for overstating your views. Touché.

[greatauntoftriplets]

71. If human rights issues are grounds for an invasion....

perhaps we should invade Saudi Arabia next. Oh wait...they've got oil.

[KnowerOfLogic]

27. So what exactly is your case for war with iran? As you said, it just

encourages other countries to get nukes as fast as they can. And *please* don't suggest that the 'illegal' aspect of the iraq war was the problem. "Pre-emptive" war is the problem; it is normally called 'aggression,' and quite often leads to more aggression on the part of others.

[LoZoccolo]

29. I don't have a case for war with Iran yet.

I never said I did. But I'm not going to threaten our Democratic leaders for not vowing not to invade Iran at this point. It is way too early for that.

[Gyre]

56. I don't support a preemptive attack on Iran

And I believe that Israel should be forced to give up their nukes as well. Oh yeah, they "don't have a nuclear weapons program" according to them, so I guess they're safe from any suspicion.

Iran has also said they don't have a nuclear weapons program, and there's one hell of alot more evidence that Israels got hundreds of nukes, but to hell with evidence! We've decided that we're going to deny nukes to anybody we, or our "friends" don't like, regardless of the blatant hypocrasy of it or danger. We've also decided we don't care if Pakistan exports nuclear technology to declared enemies because they're helping us pretend we still care about Bin Laden when necessary for photo-ops.

It's a double-standard that isn't lost on the 3rd world. And if you ask me, Israel's much more likely to detonate a nuke in anger than any of the so-called "evil" countries on the chimp's hit list. That is precisely why I support all efforts to disgorge Israel's proven yet persistantly-denied WMDs, regardless of the cost.

Shalom :)

Gyre

[KnowerOfLogic]

25. "Nonproliferation" through invasion promotes proliferation. It's

pretty simple. It's sad that some dems don't realize that if we were in Iran's place or in the place of any other nation that could possibly be in Bush's crosshairs, we'd be doing everything possible to get nukes, and we would be right to do so. Trying to 'protect' america by threatening other countries is ultimately a losing strategy.

And btw, how long do you suggest that we keep up the Nonproliferation through Invasion doctrine? After all, the more countries w/o nukes that we invade, the more countries there will be who will try to get nukes; are we seriously going to have non-stop "preventive" wars from now until Armegeddon? Sounds like the cure may be worse than the disease.

[LoZoccolo]

32. Libya gave up it's nuke program as a result of the Iraq invasion.

After all, the more countries w/o nukes that we invade, the more countries there will be who will try to get nukes; are we seriously going to have non-stop "preventive" wars from now until Armegeddon?

I'm not proposing to invade countries without nukes - the fact that Iraq did not have them is a strong factor in my decision to think the invasion was a bad idea.

[KnowerOfLogic]

39. LOL. Libya had been working for a number of years to get out

from under UN sanctions or whatever various national sanctions that they had been under since their involvement in several terrorist attacks. They had been working on this for years (paying financial compensation to victims, etc.) so that they could get back to having normal relations and selling their oil. When the whole 'war on terror' and iraq war came around, they probably just saw it as a good opportunity to make a symbolic gesture that they were officially out of the 'rogue nation' business. They didn't even *have* any WMD, so it's not like they even gave anything up!

[LoZoccolo]

41. They gave up their pursuit.

That's good in my book.

[poe]

46. had nothing to do with nukes

Libya was being a bit recalcitrant with their energy holdings as far as uncle SAM was concerned the nukes ploy is a red herring for public consumption only as it is in Iran and n.Korea. same old "LOOK LOOK OVER THERE!" semi-colon B>S> only one country has used nukes on other countries-5 separate occasions. US. at present equivalent of 250,000 Nagasaki's have been dropped on Iraq, in most recent slaughter, as a measurement of radioactive particulates. if you don't want to create terrorism stop participating. US under DEM & REP Rule has been worlds worst terrorist for at least last 60 years. very consistent. see my post at end of thread. let's change things.

[KnowerOfLogic]

58. Sure, it's good, but it wasn't a result of *'s macho BS, and that

is an important point to make.

[IndianaGreen]

61. Why are you repeating the White House propaganda?

Why repeat the Bush talking points, and worse yet, adopt them as Democratic talking points?

Fellow DUer KnowerOfLogic is correct when he said that Lybia had been trying for years to get out from under UN sanctions. BTW, it was Britain and Gadhafi, not the US, that get all the credit for this!

[yurbud]

26. proliferation is bad, but not a direct threat to US

We should only attack someone if they have attacked us or are very likely too.

If Iran even had a couple of dozen nukes, they wouldn't use them to attack us.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Nukes are the only deterrent to an American invasion

On those basis alone, I support the rapid development of nuclear weapon capability by every nation that fears it might end up like Iraq. This includes nations such as Brazil and Argentina!

Nukes will save lives by forcing an American President to resort to diplomacy instead of war.

Now, if you are against nukes, let's start with our own stockpile of WMDs, the largest in the world.

[purduejake]

8. Nukes saving lives?

I get your point, but the proliferation could also lead to the destruction of the world as we know it. Some of these countries are not stable. Imagine a hostile regime gaining control of a nuke... There are MANY people who are not afraid to die for revenge.

[IndianaGreen]

10. As long as we have an Imperial America on the prowl

no one in this world is safe.

[LoZoccolo]

12. This is easily one of the most nutso things I have ever heard here.

I would think that you're being sarcastic were it not for your incessant efforts to destroy the Democratic Party by splintering people into any one of a number of impotent and ultimately regressive third parties (which is funny because you don't seem to have much of a preference for which one as if it's just the contrarianism that counts).

[KnowerOfLogic]

30. What's so crazy about it? MAD worked 50 years. But if America

is determined to ratchet up the level of tension and belligerance through it's constant threats and crisis-mongering, then we shouldn't be surprised if other countries do the same and things get out of hand. Right now is truly the time to have the adults in charge of America, not the local gang of teen-age thugs.

[LoZoccolo]

36. Not being surprised is one thing.

After all, I say basically the same thing above as a reason we shouldn't have invaded Iraq so aggressively. Actively directly advocating encouraging nuclear proliferation is another. You could say it's as ham-handed a way of dealing with the tactlessness of the Bush* administration as the war in Iraq is with dealing with terrorism.

[KnowerOfLogic]

40. I don't think anyone's 'encouraging' proliferation; they're just

saying that the 'pre-emtive' war and constant threats make proliferation *more* likely, and understandably so. Countries with nukes don't get invaded, and that's okay with me. The best way to lower the threat to *everybody* is to stop the threat-mongering and reduce the tension around the world.

[LoZoccolo]

44. Sure they are.

This is what IndianaGreen wrote:

On those basis alone, I support the rapid development of nuclear weapon capability by every nation that fears it might end up like Iraq. This includes nations such as Brazil and Argentina!

Which is why I said it was one of the most nutso things I had heard here.

[KnowerOfLogic]

59. It's no crazier than non-stop war in the name of trying to *prevent*

them from getting nukes. Seriously, i can see the side that everyone having nukes *could* make us safer, depends on a lot of things. In any case, it is probably inevitable, so we better find a way to deal with it.

[LoZoccolo]

63. I. said. nothing. about. a. non. stop. war.

See post #37.

[yurbud]

72. give everybody five of ours...

Then no country would ever be invaded again.

[MsMagnificent]

70. We're not more afraid -- we can just bully Iran MUCH easier than Russia

So honorable, we are, no?

[sandnsea]

5. I don't see the word invasion

Mentioned by any Democrat quoted. This is nuts. I'm beginning to think some of these very far left groups are CIA fronts to keep the Democrats too scattered to put up a unified front. Think about it. Why DOES answer always get permits for protests???

You can't take serious discussion about possible threats and slap them up against Bush's insanity and say they're the same thing. I don't even know why you'd want to. That's how the voters got the idea Democrats were wishy-washy on security, nutty articles like this one. Gads.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. Exactly

There's no actual basis for argument here. One side voices concerns so it must be just as evil as the one that wants war. Huh?

[KnowerOfLogic]

34. Well, Iraq kinda snowballed too, didn't it? At first dems thought

they would just look tough and 'patriotic' by joining in with the Bush bluster, but then when * kept driving straight into the oncoming car, they didn't want to be the 'wimps' who told him to turn the wheel. Could the same thing happen again? Probably.

[sandnsea]

54. Some Dems did support the Iraq war

Like Lieberman and Hillary. If the writer wants to make a case that Democrats support a war with Iran, than find a statement from the war wing of the party to make the case. Otherwise I think it's just more divisive tripe and the left would be foolish to fall for it.

[KnowerOfLogic]

62. We'll see what happens when the I(ran)WR comes to a vote. nt

[IndianaGreen]

65. You will see the usual suspects voting for it

and you will hear the same pundits tell us that we must attack Iran or else a mushroom cloud will rise over our cities.

[Jim__]

15. Right. Nothing in the article even implies the dems support an

attack on Iran.

[robbedvoter]

24. Good ol'Mother Jones - making sure fascists get the "they all do it"

cover. Hunted Clinton mercilessly - and how irresponsible is this?
Pissed as I am with the Dems, this looks like Rovian maneuver at this point .

[poe]

43. WAR AND TERRORISM IS THE AMERICAN TRADITION-DEMS & REPS

Democrats began recruiting nazi war criminals
Harry Truman kicked up anti-communist hysteria
Truman supported numerous dictatorships including Saudi Arabia
Truman issued the ultra-hawkish NSC68
Truman invaded Greece and crushed their freedom movement
US and its client state in S. Korea crushed villages and massacred thousands

1965 Johnson launched a secret war on Laos dropped more bombs on it than used in WW2
LBJ invaded DOM. Republic when rebellion erupted against US backed dictatorship
LBJ backed right wing coup in Indonesia

Carter supported brutal tyrants in Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc.
The worst atrocities in East Timor occurred under Carter's watch
Support for the Contras began under Carter

Clinton bombed more countries than any other "peacetime" president
Bombed Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia
Clinton laid siege to Iraq with sanctions-at least 1.5 million killed-bombings every day

The death toll of the Democrats is quite large:
Greek Civil War:160,000-Truman
Korean War:3 Million-Truman
Assault on Indochina: 5 Million (started under Truman, accelerated under Kennedy & LBJ)
Coup in Indonesia:1 million-(LBJ)
East Timor:100,000-Carter
Iraq Sanctions: 1.5 million (mostly Clinton)
Turkish Kurdistan:40,000 (mostly Clinton

John Kerry supported the current war crimes against Iraq. The children are dying.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[welshTerrier2]

45. a few thoughts on Iran, Democrats and war ...

i don't need to be angry at Democrats on a new front ... i've got all the material i need from their non-participation on Iraq ...

will Democrats, or a majority of Democrats, support major, unprovoked aggression against Iran ??? i'm not convicting anybody based on the evidence provided ... Iran presents the U.S. with a problem ... it should be cautiously evaluated ... what will Democrats do at "the critical moment" ??? we'll see ... let's do our homework and push them to support rational, international negotiations and to make every possible effort to prevent military engagement ... i think it's too soon to be criticizing Democrats on Iran ...

here's a question for those who might be tempted to say that if Iran has nuclear weapons, we have every right to go after them ... would Iran be justified in attacking the U.S. because we have nuclear weapons and they view us as an "imminent threat" ??? i mean, it sounds like if that's the standard, they would be perfectly justified ... we're the ones threatening them, aren't we ???

[poe]

48. in agreement with the spirit of your post

if one takes a look at pretty much the rest of the world they understand quite clearly who the terrorists are and quite clearly whose boot is on their throat. Why is it that America feels it has the divine right to set the terms of the debate? this is evidenced in much of the dialog in both parties.


Did john kerry say "we don't have a right to have military bases all over the world and operatives in every jungle." Did john kerry say "the invasion of iraq violated the geneva convention and the nuremburg charter." Did john kerry say i can't support the wholesale slaughter of iraqi children i'll pull the troops out."

It's just all about that 'american way of life' isn't it?

[AntiCoup2K4]

49. One question: Is there REAL evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons?

...Or are we taking Ariel Sharon's word for it AGAIN. I'd like to see a concrete case presented, and I don't mean like that pathetic plagarized joke that Powell put on in front of the UN.

Because Iranians had a US/oil corporation colony government once, and they decided they didn't like it. They ain't going back willingly. And some of their neighbors to the north might not be so fond of the invasion either. Russia DOES have nukes, that much we do know.

[JHBowden]

51. I support military action against Iran

under certain conditions. If they are not transparent with their nuclear program, we may have to use airstrikes. A nuclear bomb going off in Tel Aviv or Los Angeles is unacceptable. I don't think anyone, Republican or Democrat, wants Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah to get their hands on a nuclear bomb.

[poe]

52. how about a nuclear bomb going off

in hiroshima, nagasaki, baghdad, kosovo, afghanistan, fallujah. break the spell. only one country has used nuclear bombs on civilian populations-5 occasions. US. i don't think anyone wants fundamentalist christians, capitalists and energy gluttons murdering their children. the wmd is a red herring be it iran or iraq or the red hoardes from nicaragua etc. same old song. greatest purveyor of violence on earth and greatest polluter on earth is US national security state. these are the facts. we can change it only if we look it squarely in the eye and stop living the lie.

[JHBowden]

53. You are doing what Bush does.

Y'know, pretend like Afghanistan, the Cold War, Iraq, WWII are all the same situation. They aren't; they are each unique in their own way.

I do not support the braindead endeavor of occupying because Iraq did not have any WMD. Furthermore, if Iraq was developing WMD, we could deal with it by airstrikes, like the Israeli attack on the Osirak facility in 1981.

Now, I do not have a problem with India or France owning nuclear bombs. But the Iranian government, unlike Iraq, has close ties to terrorist groups like Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah. If Iran places us in a sitauation where we are faced with a trade-off between air-strikes and putting millions of Americans and Israelis at risk, the moral option is to choose the airstrikes.

And I'm certainly not willing to put people's lives at risk because the Republicans deregulate polluters. That's simply asinine.

[poe]

55. the most deregulated polluter on earth is also the largest by far

the US pentagon.
the Us gov't has close ties to numerous terrorist groups it would take all night to list them and many are of their own creation. take a look in latin america, terrorist groups all around- sponsored armed by the pentagon. read some of Dr. Rosalie Bertell's work on radiation or Dr. Helen Caldicott. the US national security state is the greatest threat to life on earth. noone comes close. look who has undercut all the treaties on nuclear disarmament, bad for business. break the spell.

[JHBowden]

66. For the sake of argument, I grant you everything.

Even if what you say is true, how is it in our interest to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons?

You have yet to address this.

[IndianaGreen]

57. Let's get rid of our nukes, and Israel's (which were stolen from us)

before we go preaching to anyone else about theirs. After all, nukes are the only deterrent to US invasion and bombing. How can we blame anyone else from taking steps to protect their population from suffering the same death and desolation we brought to the Iraqis?

[JHBowden]

67. There is no problem with India or France having nukes.

I'm not committed to a nuke-free world. I just don't want Iran to have nuclear bombs, given their ties to terrorist groups. Why do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

[IndianaGreen]

69. Iran has no more ties to terrorism than Iraq and Israel do

If I was an Iranian, I would want my country to get WMDs as a deterrence to US bombing and invasion. Who wouldn't!

As many Romans used to say:

Death to the Empire! Bring back the Republic!

[KnowerOfLogic]

64. No way. No more hypothetical scare scenarios to force people

into war support. The whole iraq war was based on highly imaginary speculation as to what sadaam 'might' do if he got WMD's. I am interested in *probability* not 'possibility.' Sadaam had been president of Iraq for 24 years and in that time he had never used WMD's against americans (even during gulf war 1, when we were right there, and his strength was at it greatest), and he never gave any WMD's he may have had to terrorists.

But we were supposed to believe that he "might" just out of the blue some day use WMDs against us for the hell of it, or give them to terrorists to use against us, when of course he would know full well that even the tiniest excuse we could find to blame him for the attack would lead to obliteration for Iraq.

Now they're already whipping up the fear and beating the drums about what Iran 'might' do with WMDs. Save it. Anybody 'might' do anything. That does not make a rational or moral case for pre-emptive war, anytime we feel like it.

[JHBowden]

68. Nuclear weapons *are* scary.

In Iraq, we had weapons inspectors on the ground; there was no reason to start a war there.

But Iran is not Iraq.

If Iran is not showing transparency with respect to its nuclear facilities, airstrikes are appropriate from a moral and strategic perspective. Israel did the same to Iraq in 1981 when they tried to build a nuclear facility for "peaceful" purposes. Iran is especially a dangerous case, since they *do* support international terrorist groups.

[messiah]

60. LOL the responses in this thread and all of the Answer threads

prove Democrats are moving to to right at one hell of a rapid pace!. :toast: