Would You Support a U.S. Attack on Iran? (Debate)

[jrydberg]

Let's review what Hans Blix said before the war. Essentially, he said that Iraq was cooperating on process but not on substance. That it was not enough for Iraq to open doors and say, "See? No weapons here." They needed to account for the stockpiles of weapons they admitted to having. They needed to show proof that the weapons had been destroyed.

Hans Blix was VERY careful in his words not to claim there were no WMDs. He didn't know that. What he did say was that, given more time, the inspections could verify that Iraq was indeed disarmed. It's difficult to say whether this is correct or not, since the inspectors, of course, never went back.

The criticism of Hans Blix goes back to his days at the IAEA where Iraq developed a nuclear program in the late 1980s while fooling the IAEA, under Blix's leadership. The New York Times thought him a "disappointing choice" to be head of UNMOVIC. The fact that Iraq was still not seen to be fully cooperative with inspectors certainly could lead one to question the wisdom of simply letting the inspectors have more time.

I don't think Hans Blix is an idiot. But he wasn't arguing that Saddam had no WMDs either.

 

[WWTBAMFAN]

The Iranians are in effect telling the US to "bring it on." See http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L18285895.htm

TEHRAN, Jan 18 (Reuters) - Iran has the military might to deter attacks against it, its defence minister said in remarks published on Tuesday, one day after U.S. President George W. Bush said he would not rule out military action against Iran.

Ali Shamkhani said the Islamic Republic, which has seen U.S. forces topple regimes in neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq in the last three years, did not fear attack.

"We are able to say that we have strength such that no country can attack us because they do not have precise information about our military capabilities due to our ability to implement flexible strategies," the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Shamkhani as saying.

"We can claim that we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent," he said, without elaborating.

Iran last October announced successful trials of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile with a range of 1,250 miles (2,000 km), putting parts of Europe, as well as Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, within its reach.

I hope that Bush does not try to attack Iran.

 

[dmadman43]

LOL! Somehow I missed this comment earlier. I am hysterically laughing right now, if that makes you feel any better.

Serving in Vietnam sure had a lot to do with everything when the Republicans were bashing John Kerry for it. I'm simply wondering when GWB became so war happy, when in truth, while John Kerry was fighting the war in VietNam, GWB was tying one on with the frat boys.

I'm sorry you think I'm stupid, dmadman, but I'm honestly concerned for this country, and I'm concerned that this President is going to lead us down the path of no return. Another case of "Bring it On," only a lot more deadlier, is not something I want to see happen. Iran, which has not been devastated by a dozen years of sanctions, really does have a huge army and large stockpiles of weapons. Is it really so stupid of me to think this guy is arrogant enough to think he can "win" a nuclear war? I don't think so, and I don't think I'm alone. Trust me, I would LOVE to think differently, I keep hoping something is going to change to make me think differently. But every morning I wake up and I hear something new that makes me think perhaps a sliver of the moon will be all thats left when its all done and said.

By no means do I think you are stupid. I understand and respect your concern. I actually share some of it, quite frankly.

Still and all, I don't get the Vietnam argument. Kerry didn't WANT to serve, either. By his own admission he volunteered for a unit he was convinced would not see combat. And I find it incredibly amusing that a party the worked so hard to oppose and end the Vietnam War was so quick to tout the service of one of their candidates. I still ask the question...Ho Chi Mihn served in Vietnam, too, so what's your point? If Kerry were actually Head of the Joint Chief of Staff, or someone like Eisenhower during Vietnam, the point would have much more validity. As it stand, Kerry was a low level officer looking to get out as quickly as possible. Not sure how that qualifies him to be Commander in Chief over even you or me (or Bush)

 

[Teejay32]

Do you agree or disagree that any one who claimed that Hans Blix was incompetent now owes Mr. Blix an apology?

I never said he was incompetent. I think he was right about a lot of things.

 

[septbride2002]

evidence supporting what, exactly?

the case was made that Saddam could and had thwarted controls placed on him before and would again, and that he remained "growing and gathering" threat intent on producing WMD, and the official ISG report confirms all that to a degree I didn't think we'd get. (It cannot confirm or deny many of the issues surrounding weapons stockpiles, does not get into terrorism or humanitarian points.)

Support for saying that he was growing and gathering and intending to produce. You even state the official ISG report only confirms this to a degree. I would like to actually see proff. You also go on to say it cannot confirm or deny many of the issues surrounding weapons stockpiles. Therefore really it doens't say anything.

~Amanda

 

[Charade]

Sure,
and Saddam killed JFK, France is responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer, Germany is killing the rainforest, Russia sent Lewinski into the Oval Office, and the UN caused the Tsunami on 12/26/04

Hey man, that was supposed to be top secret info!!!!

 

[snoopy]

By no means do I think you are stupid. I understand and respect your concern. I actually share some of it, quite frankly.

Still and all, I don't get the Vietnam argument. Kerry didn't WANT to serve, either. By his own admission he volunteered for a unit he was convinced would not see combat. And I find it incredibly amusing that a party the worked so hard to oppose and end the Vietnam War was so quick to tout the service of one of their candidates. I still ask the question...Ho Chi Mihn served in Vietnam, too, so what's your point? If Kerry were actually Head of the Joint Chief of Staff, or someone like Eisenhower during Vietnam, the point would have much more validity. As it stand, Kerry was a low level officer looking to get out as quickly as possible. Not sure how that qualifies him to be Commander in Chief over even you or me (or Bush)

I think the fact that Kerry had first hand knowledge of the horrors of war is signficant. The fact that GWB used his father's influence to get out of serving in Vietnam, and we're now talking about going to war with yet more countries, like a chess game gone haywire, is also significant. Its not his *** on the line, or his kids' *** on the line, literally, now is it?

 

[septbride2002]

It's interesting how when Clinton ran that all the Republicans talked about was his lack of military service. Then Kerry runs and talks about his service and then his burned on it.

I respect anyone who serves time in the military - especially those who have to leave their families and go fight a war on the fronts. That is what John Kerry did. I don't care that he wanted to leave and come home. So did my Father! Doesn't make him any more or less a hero then any other scared kid that had to go, some came home and many didn't. Yes Kerry volunteered to go, my Father was drafted - both wanted to come home, and thankfully did. Show some respect people.


~Amanda

 

[dmadman43]

I don't think Hans Blix is an idiot. But he wasn't arguing that Saddam had no WMDs either.

For the record, I never said Blix was an idiot. I said he was incompetent. There is a difference. Some would say Eisner is incompetent, but he's definately not an idiot.

 

[septbride2002]

For the record, I never said Blix was an idiot. I said he was incompetent. There is a difference. Some would say Eisner is incompetent, but he's definately not an idiot.

And have yet to show any proof as to why. Guess we should just take your word for it?

~Amanda

 

[Enigma]

For the record, I never said Blix was an idiot. I said he was incompetent. There is a difference. Some would say Eisner is incompetent, but he's definately not an idiot.

Did you ever explain why you think Hans Blix is incompetent?

 

[dmadman43]

It's interesting how when Clinton ran that all the Republicans talked about was his lack of military service. Then Kerry runs and talks about his service and then his burned on it.

I respect anyone who serves time in the military - especially those who have to leave their families and go fight a war on the fronts. That is what John Kerry did. I don't care that he wanted to leave and come home. So did my Father! Doesn't make him any more or less a hero then any other scared kid that had to go, some came home and many didn't. Yes Kerry volunteered to go, my Father was drafted - both wanted to come home, and thankfully did. Show some respect people.

~Amanda

That's not the issue. I have no problem with his service, either. Nor Bush's. Both served their country. Some just choose to piss on National Guardsman, it seems.

The issue is Kerry was implying that his service in battle qualified him as CiC and that he "knew how to fight a war". Like I said, I'm not sure how being a low level officer in the Navy, serving Swift Boat duty in middle of the jungle in Vietnam with your sole goal of getting out as quickly as possible and not being privy to overall military strategy or being responsible for setting same qualifies one as CiC.

 

[dmadman43]

Did you ever explain why you think Hans Blix is incompetent?

Well, the fact that Saddam was able to lead him around by the nose, and that he was never able to sell the UN or the rest of the world on his supposed knowledge that Iraq did not have WMD.

 

[dmadman43]

And have yet to show any proof as to why. Guess we should just take your word for it?

~Amanda

Just one man's opinion. Kind like how those feel about Bush.

 

[dmadman43]

Good God, get a new playbook.

Shall we agree to do it together? Whaddya say?

 

[dmadman43]

Please site proof that says Hans Blix is incompetent. I ask for at least 5 examples.

~Amanda

Please prove that Bush is an idiot. I ask for at least 3 examples.

 

[dmadman43]

If not the sanctions, then why didn't he have all those nasty weapons Shrub accused him of having at the time of the invasion ? SOMETHING got rid of them...Don't tell me you're giving Clinton credit....

Agree, something or someone got rid of them. So, problem solved. Now what?

 

[septbride2002]

I never said he was an idiot - therefore I feel no need to site examples. You however did say Blix was incompetent. Stop avoiding - you either have it or you don't. Come on dmadman....we are all waiting.

~Amanda

 

[dmadman43]

Hans Blix was right. You were wrong. End of story.

I never said he was wrong. I said he was incompetent.

 

[dmadman43]

Poor dmadman can not admit that he was completely and utterly wrong about Has Blix. Again, Hans Blix's report to the UN has been verified by the US Survey Team. See http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~2654199,00.html The inspections and sanctions were working. There was no need to invade Iraq.

Poor dmadman, you were wrong and Hans Blix was right. Just admit the facts and take your medicine like a man. People who who do not admit when they are wrong do not get ponies.

Again, I never said he was wrong, I said he was incompetent. Like they say, a stopped clock is right twice a day.