So when do you predict war with Iran?

[_Inconceivable]

ranting..

z,

I don't fully agree with the US approach to protecting it's borders and that of it's allies, but I think you might see a bigger picture here if you weren't so clouded with anger.

One thing I would stress to you when leaving the Mormon church is not to take the doctrine of half truths and sensationalism with you. This is particularly why I left. Why hold on to it?

As you well know, I still have issues with this myself.

[_The Nehor]

Nehor,

This is probably the first time in a year I would agree with your response. What's the matter with you?

I count it down to us not discussing religion at the moment.

[_Redefined]

My husbands deployment (submarines) got extended over the holidays because of "current world events". He will be home in a week. I'm sure that if there was anything about to happen, they wouldn't be letting them come home.

PS for GP, my "personal life" message might be too much for you to handle. . . advised not to read!

[_The Nehor]

Iraq had SCUD missiles with a range just over 90 miles. What, they were going to launch them towards Miami and pray to Allah for a tailwind? (Like the jaredite barges/submarines maybe?)

The perceived threat from Iraq was that they would smuggle chemical or biological weapons into the United States or launch an attack on one of our allies.

These countries were no threat to the USA.

Not miliarily.

19 of the 21 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Some of them had their flight training financed by Salt Lake City banks.

And were funded by Afghani (and many then thought Iraqi) sources.

Better to attack Saudi Arabia

I agree but Saudi Arabia's terrorists are mostly supported by private citizens while the government has been an ally of convenience with the U.S. for some time.

and Utah than Iraq... whose Sadaam Hussein refused AlQuida and Taliban access to his country for training.

I am pretty sure that an invasion of Utah would be inane and idiotic. In no way, shape, or form can banks be held accountable for what is done with every transaction they are involved in without everyone ever working at a bank going to prison.

Unless you're seriously suggesting that the Utah bankers were collaborating with the terrorists?

Bush is a murderer and all who supported him are equaly guilty.

He's probably not and no, they're not.

[_SoHo]

Nehor,

This is probably the first time in a year I would agree with your response. What's the matter with you?

----------------
For many years Iran has made it's intent known to destroy Israel. They just haven't the power to fulfill as yet.

I would predict that Israel will eventually do it's best to pre-empt Iran's ablity to create nuclear weapons. If Obama is still in power, Israel will certainly be on it's own.

Perhaps Israel will take out Obama, Biden and Pelosi as a pre-pre-emptive?


(Damn Abraham and his physical weakness for handmaidens - this is all his fault)

Why oh why oh why? The idea that Obama wouldn't support Israeli support is absolutely ludicrous. Whoever is president, the U.S. will back Israel in the event of any such conflict.

[_Brackite]

What 'Preemptive strikes' against Afghanistan and Iraq?

These countries were no threat to the US. What did we 'pre-empt' in invading these nations, toppling their governments and maintaining an Army of Occupation in them?

The US is a bully nation that chooses to invade and kill thousands of people for the vanity of one jackass in the White House.

From President Barack Obama's Speech:

...

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.


As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda - a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban - a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.


Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them - an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 - the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security.


Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy - and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden - we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.


Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention - and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.


Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.


But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.


Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.


Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation's Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and - although it was marred by fraud - that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and Constitution.


Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan - General McChrystal - has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people - and our troops - no less.


This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

...

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/0 ... s_n_376088.



I mainly agree with this Speech From President Barack Obama.

[_The Nehor]

I liked that speech too.

[_zzyzx]

I still have friends in the military, some of them I served with. None of them like the idea of where we are fighting. They go and serve because that is the oath they took but they believe this is more screwed up than Vietnam. They are not supporters of 'The War' as no war has been declared by Congress. They feel as I do, we are and invading nation supporting an Army of Occupation. Not invited, not welcome and once we leave little will have been accomplished other than signing the death penalty for most of their countrymen who helped US Troops.

In the 20 years after this crap is over you will be asking the same question you should be asking now. "What did our boys and girls die for"?

We are stuck due to the murderous pricks Bush and Cheney. Their friends get richer as our children, relatives and friends die in the ratholes they are fighting in. End the thing. Carpet bomb the place from one border to the next. Leave it a smoking wasteland. Use technology to assure no one is left alive while not suffering even one injury to our soldiers. Come home and quit trying to be the worlds policeman. France got it right for once, their is no intelligent reason for our troops in Iraq and very little in for Afghanistan. Get us out of there.

[_bcspace]

Just seeing who has insights, clairvoance or something akin to it. Seems like the media is softening up the population to accept yet another war that is totally unjustified. The D&C is clear on what constitutes a valid war and Iran has not in any way crossed that line with the US. One would hope LDS people will not be blinded by Stockholm Syndrome and adopt the "My country right or wrong" attitude.

Funny how quickly Obama adopts the Bush program because it's the right thing to do.....Of course you obviously don't have any clue about LDS doctrine on the matter of war and cherry picking a few verses doesn't not give the complete picture. Among other things, GBH himself in conference put his stamp of approval on the Iraq war and the Church published it making it doctrine that one must now factor into the mix.

Pre-emptive war against Iran is totaly justified within and without the gospel as Iran is already at war by proxy and you have a terrorist (doesn't matter which one) supporting nation with a wmd program just as Iraq in a "post 9/11 world".

My main concern is that Obama will make the same or worse initial mistakes as Bush in that he won't go for an all out victory. Bush was right in every way and at least he tried to do the right thing. After the defeat of Obamacare, Barak Hussein is simply looking to wag the dog.

I think the proper strategy is to either:

1) Have a nationwide Thunder Run in which we decimate Iran's government, military industrial complex (along with the nuke program), and oil producing facilities (because they have been misused and because it would weaken China). We occupied those sites and search for others until they are all destroyed to our satisfaction. Then we withdraw after a couple of months or so after arming and training the various anti-regime groups and contain the mess from Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran will then become yet another death trap for Islamic radicals and that has played in our favor given our experience in Iraq.

Or

2) Simply spark a civil war and destabilization by arming, training, and inserting anti regime forces, but that is less of a sure thing especially when it comes to getting rid of the nuclear program.

Or

3) Give Israel what they need to make heavy and continuous strategic strikes and allow them to establish Greater Israel.

I would certainly add the real threat of the complete destruction of Mecca, Medina, Al Asqua, and several lesser shrines and holy sites and carry it out one by one if any one of those nations or terrorist organizations so much as raises their heads off the ground from their grovelling in obescience to us.

It's time to end the nuanced approach, stop p u s s y footing around, and achieve total victory. Worried about oil prices as a result? We should have become independent of foreign oil decades ago both Republicans and Democrats having plenty of opportunity to achieve this.

And I think perhaps we ought to take the liberals at their word and actually do what they have been erroneously claiming the wars been been all about and take some oil for ourselves. lol

[_zzyzx]

Start threatening the supply of Oil to China and you will find Los Angeles disappearing in a nuclear cloud.
The US needs to quit trying to be the 'moral compass' of the world since the US has no moral claim to much of anything these days. Funny we worry about those nations that have something we want and not much about those who don't. Millions more die in repression and starvation in countries that do not have oil wells and the US sits back and does little to nothing.