Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Romney Aligning Himself With Israeli Hawks On Iran

Look how long this bullshit has been going on,...and at who has been calling the shots.

,...and you're comfortable with letting one of yours get in the middle of it?

,...better think,..

from 2002

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/7/154220.shtml


Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says the U.S. war on terror shouldn't end with Iraq.

Iran is just as dangerous and a top priority for a regime change, Sharon said this week. He argued that although Iraq is an "insane" regime, Iran is a "center of world terror."

In an exclusive interview with the New York Post, Sharon said that as soon as Iraq is dealt with, he "will push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do' list."

hell i knew Iran was a big threat over a decade ago......aint news to me....

The structure is what makes this case unique though, TRH. Like I said, in my mind foreign relations are a case by case thing, not some blanket policy.

Iran has a Statist who is not a religious fanatic that is the President. Separate from that, they have the Supreme Leader, who IS a religious fanatic that calls the shots.

They sidestep the responsibility by having the Statist as the Foreign Relations Guy and the face of the Nation, and the Religious Zealot as the real man behind the curtain.

Zealot says, we need weaponized skills and technology to advance our cause. President takes this to the World and says, "What he means is we need electricity."

Zealot doesn't care what happens as long as the cause is advanced. President cares only in that he wants to keep his power. So, to keep his power, he has to convince the Zealot to keeps things subtle.

This kind of relationship is the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Al-Queda, and 100's of other groups that desire to advance the ideology of the Zealot.

They don't care what happens to Iran, the Zealot doesn't care about the Nation of Iran, he can be a Zealot anywhere.

The Groups they support are so widely established that plausible dependability is granted. If Hezbollah, Hamas, or Al-Queda commit an attack, Iran can claim they aren't responsible.

Convenient little set up, wouldn't you say!?

Bingo.

Not really, I mean, I guess it's a smaller portion of a larger picture.

Everyone wants to make this about nukes and I just don't see it that way. Nuclear Arms are two words that evoke a response across the globe. So, people rush to use them. (The words, not the devices themselves).

It's the policies and pieces at play that are far more dangerous because they are FAR more likely to happen, that I keep referring to.

My apologies if I lead you to believe that this was about nukes. It's far bigger than that...

HAJ, it seems you never read the article that this thread is about.

Especially Israel.

That's what they said about Iraq too.

How many lies do people have to hear before they get a clue?

It's crazy.

That's news, how?

No, it's not "new"s,...it's "old",...and stale.

lulls America to sleep? We have troops in Afghanistan, troops in Iraq and we wonder why Iran is sabre rattling and needing a nuke? We have them surrounded by countries we have conquered in the last decade.

The only they have figured out is we're setting up camp in their backyard. We're a long damn way from being lulled to sleep. Unfortunately the hook in mouth American public just keeps biting the bait thrown at him about it.

The only people out there who are pushing for another war in the Middle East are those who are expecting others to do it for them.

Yes sir, I have. Like I said though, nukes are a small part of the big picture. I think Romney's getting a view of the big picture and knowing the power that the phrase "nuclear weapons" brings to the table, that's where his kind are making their stance.

I just wish somebody on the National Stage would stop insulting American intelligence and explain that it's a far bigger issue than some nuclear capability. Then again, maybe the average American just lacks the ability to comprehend this, and that's why politicians resort to using "catch phrases".

It's not the face of Iran that scares me, it's the heart. Is it true that a Nuclear Iran is a threat to us? YES! Is it also true that a non-nuclear Iran is a threat to us? YES!

Does that mean we need to go to war with the Nation of Iran? NO!

We just need to stop kidding ourselves and fall for the idea that this is all because of Operation Ajax. That operation was a catalyst in a movement that is far older than Western Culture....

your premise that we started it, is a fallacy.

as is the premise that if we pack up and go home, all will be better...

The best part is when they start telling fiscal hawks "you don't grasp the severity of this" when our country is on the brink of losing its ability to be a world power because we're knee deep in the ass end of the world trying to stop a king of the mountain game on religious soil.

How will stopping all military action fix one thing in our Government?

I've noticed you have a great talent to read a post and take away a meaning that isn't there.

that is a serious question?

You noticed that too, eh?

You mean you don't believe that interventionism is to blame?

Because, that's pretty much the argument posited above...

Yep! Sure is...