Ron, what parrallels do you see between the Iran situation and the cold war? The cold war was a war niether side was willing to instigate as it would have resulted in a war so epic in magnatude that losses would have crippled all parties.

This is not the case with Iran.

shemp, have you read anything about the politics going on in iran right now? do you think everyone is behind ahmadinejad? do you not think there are people who wield real power who hold political clout?

i think we are doing the exact right thing by letting them save face by rleasing those troops with the bravado they did it. there is more to the story. and if you read between the lines, do you really think they were wanting to look weak by saying "well, we messed up with those brits and we got called on it big time. our mistake". the west came out of that whole fiasco smelling like roses.

DING!!!! I was thinking the same thing.

us versus them in a standoff. who will blink first tempered by that which is holding up the will behind the bravado. and the related isolationist "we don't need you, our way is better" being broken down by the reality that their bravado couldn;t pay the piper; the pure economics mean they dont want to starve their people to save face against the great satan.

Ron, I already agreed with you. What is the purpose behind your questions. I am not sure if I read you right, but I think you may be the only person on this Earth that has the careful insight and knowlege of Iran that it takes to make this decision. I do know much of Iran (although, like you, I am not Iranian and have never spent any time there). I said, if it were up to me, I would invade. What more do you want? UP TO ME. Not, up to you and your pseudo-superior intellect.

Oh and Ron, don't take this the wrong way. But when you make a statement or ask a question please fully explain it. I find some of your debate (particularly in this thread) murky. Perhaps it is murky for a reason?

didn't you have a whiney series of posts the other day when you were talking about people piling on in arguments?

Ummmm who cares who blinks? We are the power, not them.

Related Isolationsist? Russia had about 40 countries and a billion people - counting the easter block. What does Iran have? Syria?

ahhh yes I did. And I will admit this is a pile on. My apologies. But you never did address his statement. Its like you kind of pretended you did not make the MAJOR debate mistake and just brushed it aside (for the umteenth million time).

If there were the political will in this country to do what needed to be done, we wouldn't need to invade. A little gunboat diplomacy would be enough to quell the natives. As it is, the natives see a legislative branch controlled by an anti-war dilettante, a hamstrung President, and allies who could care less. All this makes it that much more likely that we'll have to invade, or - at the least - bomb. I hope not, but I see the alternatives shrinking.

Ron, I guess this whole parrallel thing is what had me coming back to this thread. I guess I just don't see it. I mean, obviously there are some, just like you and I have so much in common.... we both are male, we both breath, we both eat.

I just really wanted to hear your rational for that.

i said that it seemed to author of the original article was making an analogy about the cold war. then J decided he needed swimware and J needed to assume things.

huh? so i've read some articles in time that lend credence to this article and now i'm a know it all? hey, the articles raised some good points. i'll consult the national review next time.

i think thatis wholly unnecessary based on what i've read about the plitical situation in iran but i'm sure that is wrong.


why? this is a message board. i do what i can. i prefer to discuss things via dialougue unlessi am writing a memo or brief.

I totally agree.

or maybe it would increase solidarity behind ahmadinejad. (assuming i am getting what you mean by gunboat diplomacy, you hawk, you.)

Ron, in response to your last quote. The reasons you want to fully explain your questions is because (I think) often times people do not know what you are talking about or asking. It almost seems like its a way to "back out" of an argument. Since I am sure you are not trying to back out of any arguments, I would like some more clarity in your posts. Thus, I could better explain my position, and you could better explain yours.

Au Contraire. The mullahs are apocalyptic. They will pay any price, including their own destruction (much less their people's!), to destroy the little satan, much less the great one.

I don't think you do. Wiki explains that, "in international politics, gunboat diplomacy refers to the pursuit of foreign policy objectives with the aid of conspicuous displays of military power - implying or constituting a direct threat of warfare, should terms not be agreeable to the superior force."

Hold it J; Iran was no more malleable )sp?) when the Republicans controlled Congress. As to our allies, well I can't argue there, but lets not put this on Congress' doorstep. Yet.

Straw, I think he is blaming the Political will, not congress. He says that the Natives percieve an anti-war dilettante, and appear to be using this. Not, that it is actually any less effective.

Oh; if so, never mind (in the church lady voice)

Read the article. Not sure how it is being used to refute J's statement.

well, we did invade their neighbor.

hmm.

did ya read the whole thing? when i read it, it doesn't seem like there is a taliban-in-waiting like J is alluding to. i mean, it's called "the war within".

btw when I said in the post of Read the article I was not implying you should read it, I was implying that I read (red) it.

btw when I said in the post of Read the article I was not implying you should read it, I was implying that I read (red) it.