Story Comments
Posted by: mmrhe 6 months, 2 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
100%
mmrhe6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not that liberals don't appreciate all the implications of Iranian hegemony in the ME jimdoze.
Reply
It's the fact that your buddies in the last administration were warned that ONE of the MANY RISKS they were taking in invading Iraq was just that.
So now that we are on the verge of that reality, don't point fingers at the Left OR the sane ones on the Right for that matter who knew better.
I'll bet we won't see Ol' Ironsides Cheney running his mouth about that will we!-
33%
jimdoze6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just as I thought... it's a "Blame the Bush Administration" response.
Reply
It is nonsensical to suggest that an invasion of Iraq is causative of Iranian efforts in pursuit of Middle Eastern hegemony. Implicit in that argument is that the Iranians are making that move to protect themselves. Frankly, the U.S. having boots on the ground in Iraq renders Iran a far safer place, unless Iran had (and has) larger ambitions.-
100%
mmrhe6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're simply burying your head in the sand if you don't understand that a weakened and chaotic situation in Iraq emboldens her rival jimdoze.
Reply
And with the American military strung out as it is, just how effective are all those boots gonna be?-
25%
jimdoze6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"just how effective are all those boots gonna be?"
Reply
Very!
Chaos in Iraq with U.S. presence is a very different scenario than chaos without. Iran figured that the chaos that was provoked by the Al Aksari mosque gambit would serve to boot the U.S. out, reduce Iraq to irreversible chaos and provide easy pickings for the southern oil fields (perhaps even in the name of stabilizing the situation). Given the temperament of the opposition party in the U.S. at the time, they very nearly succeeded. As chaos has subsided, Iran has retreated on the Iraqi chaos front, but has continued developing nuclear weapons, figuring that the west has no stomach for making a serious demand that they stop.-
100%
mmrhe6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And the West has no stomach for it because of the drain Iraq has put on our resources.
Reply
Imagine for a moment we concentrated on al-Queda as they retreated in Afghanistan instead of engaging Iraq.
Remember the world was with us! We had righteous indignation on our side!
We would've most likely apprehended or killed Bin Laden, weakened or destroyed the Taliban and al-queda to an even greater degree quite possibly denying it the haven it now enjoys in Pakistan.
Should Iran have pursued it's nuclear program in this scenario, we would be in a much stronger position politically in the region to actually do something about it without looking like rogue thugs.
They blew it Iraq jimmy. And we live in a much more dangerous world because of it.-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If we had concentrated on Al Qaeda instead of Iraq, the world would now be an even less stable place than it is now. If you want to talk about a strung out military, how long could the U.S. have maintained aircraft carrier task forces and heavily functioning air bases in the region to continue what was an increasingly ineffective flyover regime on Iraq.
Reply
They did not blow it in Iraq, mm. They saved our collective a$$es.
Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Bin Laden and even Pakistan, while very very important, are strategically less important than Iraq. The collapse of Iraq, without the U.S. on the ground, had about a 99% probability of developing into a regional war.-
100%
mmrhe6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I couldn't disagree with you more jim
Reply
You seemed to have bought into the Bush/ Cheney doctrine in it's entirety!
Pakistan has nuclear weapons AND Islamic extremists.
That is something that Iraq NEVER HAD and ironically the two reasons given for invading in the first place.
If Pakistan collapses, we could find ourselves with a nuclear power controlled by people sworn to our destruction by any means.-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
True enough what you say about Al Qaeda and Pakistan when viewed through the lens of that being the only "real" problem. Exept that it wasn't.
Reply
Had Iraq collapsed, Iran would have moved on the southern oil fields, the Kurds would have opted for independence... and the Turks, who will never allow an independent Kurdistan, would have crushed the Kurds and, in the process, taken the northern oil fields. Northern Iraqi territory had been under Ottoman contral into WWI.
In 2003... and had we not been in Iraq since, Iraq was of far greater strategic danger than what is now the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You are making the mistaken assumption that, without our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan would have been a less intractable situation.
BTW, are you assuming that we would have established a military presence in Pakistan as well as part of the strategy to rid the world of Al Qaeda?-
100%
mmrhe6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This Iraqi collapse you speak of was caused by our invasion jim so in essence you are arguing against the invasion!
Reply
We will never know what would've happened had we not squandered our chances in Afghanistan but I believe the probability of a better outcome is almost undeniable.-
100%
bigG6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Very astute mmrhe. In fact, the Snaggletooth inspired exit stage left to Iraq did very little to make us safer no matter what anyone says. Had we stayed on course in Afghanistan, then Al Qaeda would have made that the battleground instead of Iraq. Therefore the "better to fight them over there than here" argument is moot. In fact, the war in iraq did more to aid Al Qaeda and splinter groups of same by aiding recruitment.
Reply
This was documented in studies by both Saudi Arabia and Israel. ( strange bedfellows, eh?)
-
-
-
100%
gamahuche6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pakistan is a dubious ally - unstable, undemocratic, and a purveyor of nuclear technology to anyone willing to pay.
Reply
Then there's our other great ally Israel with its illegal and STILL officially unacknowledged nuclear weapons..
With friends like these who needs enemies.
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
splitrch6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I always thought that going into Iraq was a mistake. We managed to stir up the Muslim world against us and for what? To depose a tyrant? Arabs seem to like tyrants otherwise they would do something about it themselves. Mubarak is President For Life. How democratic is that?
Reply
The simple fact is that Bush wanted an excuse to invade and one up his Daddy. Cheney wanted the oil and defense contracts. They knew Saddam didn't have WMD's. It didn't matter. Now their supporters accept the moving of the goal posts to justify the invasion's revisionist goal of removing a dictator. That wasn't the selling point for this war. They conveniently forget what they used to parrot at the beginning.
If anything good comes out of this in years to come they will of course try to rewrite history to make it a great accomplishment for the Bush administration. Believe me, anything good resulting from all this will be in spite of the Bush administration's policies. -
-
-
-
42%
Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Silly lib. It was Carter that gave us the Iran we know and hate today. He pulled the rug out from under the Shah because he did not like him and liked the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah was so thankful that they captured the embassy and held the embassy people as prisoners until the day he left office.
Reply-
100%
mmrhe6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You'd be funny if you weren't such a dangerous boob Endo
Reply
Check your history.
The Shah was propped up by the US and maintained control through terror and torture.
Two things your buddies in the last administration are well acquainted with.
Try to have at least one foot in reality next time you attempt historical revision. -
100%
cowboygrandpa6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo:
Reply
Your hatred is clouding everything.
The Shah of Iran was a sick bastar* with his secret police and controlled like Hitler and Stallin did with an iron fist of death. The CIA put the puppet in there to secure our interests in the oil there.
But it so like you to take hatred and spin it to blame a politician who dealt with issues that were made for him by others who preceded him.
Do yourself a favor and get off the self righteous act. You're putting yourself in a fast lane to hell.
Reagan cut Carters legs out from under him and dealt with Terrorist scumbags. He promised weapons for the return of the hostages. You simple tool of the right wing American hating fool.
Look at what Reagan did !!!!!!!!!! You blind hypocrite !!!!!! He encouraged terrorism and supported the terrorists, trained them, supplied them and coddled them. Look what has come of his strength in dealing with terrorists. We are in world that embraces the terrorism of the Ayatollah because he was rewarded for his evil.
How stupid can you be Endo ??? Keep posting and show us please.-
20%
Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
mmrh and cowboygrandpa must believe what Carter believed at first. That the Ayatollah was such a compassionate man and he instituted a loving religious government. Silly liberals. However bad you claim the Shah was he was a saint to the mullahs that have ruled Iran since then. Stoning women, whipping women for being raped, forcing women to only go outside if a man in their family takes them (when there are no men in the family they have to stay inside and starve to death), forcing girls in a school to burn to death because they did not have the proper clothes on to come outside, etc. You are silly liberals so hung up in the goodness of Democrats you can't see the evil forest for the trees. Did you two foolish people ever hear or read about these things. They are in the news every so often.
Reply-
-
100%
cowboygrandpa6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo:
Reply
I never thought that the Ayatollah was any beter than the Shah. I didn't care for any of the rulers who place their insane agendas above the well being of those they govern.
That includes the rulers here in America.
But hey you are so full of the right wing rhetoric you can't admit that Reagan and the rest were evil men looking to bring about their idea of a world run in their ways instead of Gods' way.
The goodness of the Democrats ??? What goodness, because they take a different path to the evil they seek to see rule.
You really don't get it at all Endo !!!!!!!!
I'm waiting for God to rule again !!! Where His righteousness is the Law !!! There is no grey area. There is Gods' way and there is mans way. I'll take Gods' way !!!!
And for those of you out there who hate me for that. Thank you.
You have proven what is said in the scriptures over and over. Paraphrased - Man hates those who love God over the ways of man, because man seeks to live in his own knowledge which is lacking, therefore those who love God are mocked and hated,for reminding man that God is in charge, He is GOD, and we are not.- I see the negs from the same old crowd who want to dispute what God says. Well hey good luck with that come your day of reckoning. Don't argue with me, because I'm not God, I didn't set the rules, I just know that they are the Rules.
So enjoy all your self righteousness. Just remember that Jesus was the one who died on the Cross for us. Not the other way around. We don't get to tell Him what is acceptable, He tells us.
-
-
-
ekklesiawarriorComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (8)
chuck-the-canuck
Justice4All
gamahuche
Dionys
splitrch
GWHayduke
dissent
CaptainLucidPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.