Since when did DU start arguing for "IRAN IS THE PROBLEM."

[Flabbergasted]

What the hell? Do we realize that this is what we've been working against for the last 7 years, and now suddenly we are arguing for sanctions etc which always have been the precursor for a US invasion.


We will never stop this war unless we stop sticking our nose where it does not belong.


OUT OF IRAQ NOW

ATTACK IRAN NO.

NO MORE WAR.

[wyldwolf]

1. weren't you the one who started it?

sanctions etc which always have been the precursor for a US invasion.

Not true.

[Flabbergasted]

2. Didn't start anything. Yes they have typically been a precursor for US invasion

[dsc]

4. No they haven't

We have had sanctions against Cuba for decades, no invasion. We have had sanctions against South Africa, no invasion. We refused to trade with China, VietNam, the Soviet Union, every Warsaw pact country, and many African countries all without invasions.

[Flabbergasted]

5. I didn't say always. That's obvious.

[wyldwolf]

7. yes you did. In your OP

[Flabbergasted]

9. No I didn't. Your interpreting the statement incorrectly.

[wyldwolf]

10. LOL! Your exact quote from the OP:

we are arguing for sanctions etc which always have been the precursor for a US invasion.

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

[Flabbergasted]

11. Hyperbole, pardon me, and it's still common. Sanctions on Iran should definitely

be considered in this way given Afghanistan, and Iraq.

[wyldwolf]

15. Hyperbole? You're trying to parse the word "always."

And sanctions are exactly what is being suggested.

[Flabbergasted]

22. That was a mistake. Pardon me.

[dsc]

8. It isn't even typically

In my lifetime we have invaded VietNam, Panama, Greneda, Iraq twice, Bosnia, and that's it. Of those we had sanctions only on VietNam and Bosnia prior to invasion (the sanctions stayed on VietNam after the war), and for one of Iraq's invasions we had sanctions first. That is 50%. The other way, which is what your statement actually means, is an even lower percentage.

[wyldwolf]

6. yes you did. Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3176747&mesg_id=3176747

The US currently, or has previously, participates in sanctions against the following countries and no invasions happened during or after:

The Ivory Coast
Liberia
Sudan
Angola
Burundi
Ethiopia
Libya
Nigeria
Rwanda
Sierra Leone

[Flabbergasted]

12. I didn't start arguing about it. In fact the topic has been floating around for a couple

without me posting on it. I didn't intentionally or maliciously start anything.

[wyldwolf]

17. no, you just innocently introduced the topic into discussion

[Flabbergasted]

23. No I placed it into discussion and didn't expect much of anything.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

19. What an absurd statement.

[mvd]

13. Your three items

"OUT OF IRAQ NOW

ATTACK IRAN NO.

NO MORE WAR."

My thoughts exactly. Diplomacy with Iran should work if we give an honest attempt. When will people realize that a few decades of our repressing the Middle East has made us and our allies the biggest threat for world destruction.

[Big Pappa]

14. Sanctions yes,

War, hell no.

[mvd]

16. I always think we should sanction ourselves

Not a reality, but it is relevant to the situation. There are few good guys here. :-(

[Big Pappa]

18. Can

any country with veto power ever be sanctioned? Seems like a screwy system at times.

[mvd]

20. I don't know that

Good question.

[dsc]

21. It happened once

The USSR boycotted the Security Council and that is how Truman got the UN to invade Korea. No veto power did that again.

[Ninja Jordan]

24. Sanctions and inspections are UN procedures. Do you hate the UN?

I support these UN measures. We sanctioned Iraq under Clinton--and the U.S. didn't invade. You Kucinich people live in a dreamworld.

[Flabbergasted]

25. There is no need for sanctions.

[Big Pappa]

26. Why?

You are in disagreement with rest of the security council. Many BTW who are not what we would call friends.

[Flabbergasted]

27. I know that. Thats how the game is played,

The unprecedented growth in the demand for nuclear energy is inherently accompanied by an escalating threat of proliferation. Increasing reliance on nuclear power will require more production of nuclear fuel through enrichment or reprocessing technologies—two proliferation-prone points in the fuel cycle. It is not, therefore, subversive countries such as Iran and North Korea that threaten the current non-proliferation regime, but rather, the overall trends of nuclear technology.

Some point to the inadequacy of the NPT as the source of the growing threat of proliferation and proclaim that the NPT is dead. However, the NPT is not dead; it is simply in the midst of a crisis. The crisis arose out of certain contradictions in the NPT that give all countries a right to a closed fuel cycle, while simultaneously producing a danger of more countries developing dual use technologies to meet their energy needs.

Any resolution of the current contradiction and the threat of proliferation it causes will require the leadership of the US and Russia. However, we cannot impose limitations on countries seeking to develop nuclear programs; rather they must choose to forgo weapons enrichment voluntarily. Meanwhile, the seemingly easiest solution to the current contradictions, simply amending the NPT, is not a viable option because the NPT is not strong enough to survive the amendment process. It would be impossible to put together a large enough coalition for change, and the treaty would crumble.

Nonetheless, in order to manage the unprecedented growth of nuclear technology, it is imperative to institute voluntary limitations on the use of nuclear technology. The US, Russia, and other nuclear powers have offered new initiatives aimed at solving the main problem of proliferation under the current regime: convincing sovereign nations to forgo their right to enrichment. To succeed, however, any proposal must build trust among nations by envisioning a central role for the IAEA. Moreover, they must be commercially viable; countries will adopt a new structure only if it is profitable. Notwithstanding the differences in the substance of the US and Russian proposals, they both meet these requirements.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail&id=918&&prog=zgp,zru&proj=znpp

[Hippo_Tron]

28. I don't trust nuclear weapons in the hands of Ahmadinejad, period

I also don't foresee any need for war to stop that from happening. To preempt your next question, I don't trust nuclear weapons in the hands of Bush either and that's why I supported Gore and Kerry.

[TomClash]

29. Didn't know DU was arguing for an attack on Iran

Haven't seen that posted.:shrug: