• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush and Walker already arguing on when to start a war with Iran.

theeedude

theeedude

Lifer
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bush-vs-walker-catches-fire-over-iran-nuclear-deal_994073.html
Walker is chomping at the bit already:
Speaking to reporters here Saturday after an appearance at the Family Leader Summit, Walker said the next president will need to be prepared to take aggressive action against Iran, “very possibly” including military strikes, on the day he or she is inaugurated, and said he would not be comfortable with a commander in chief who is unwilling to act aggressively on day one of a new presidency.
Click to expand...
Bush on the other hand is being more measured and willing to wait to get a war team in place first:
Bush gave an exhaustive and highly critical assessment of Obama’s failings and offered, at the end, a promise of sorts. “One thing that I won’t do is just say, as a candidate, ‘I’m going to tear up the agreement on the first day.’ That’s great, that sounds great but maybe you ought to check in with your allies first, maybe you ought to appoint a secretary of state, maybe secretary of defense, you might want to have your team in place, before you take an act like that.”
Click to expand...
Right wing intellectuals already weighing in against being informed and ready before starting a war:
The following day, Michael Doran, a former National Security Council official and a well-regarded scholar at the Hudson Institute who has been briefing Walker and is close to his team, tweeted a link to a Politico article about Bush’s comments and wrote: “Jeb Bush is caving on Iran already – won’t commit to rolling back Obama’s Iran deal.” The same day, the Walker campaign released a statement Robert O’Brien, a national security adviser to the governor and former U.S. Representative to the United Nations. O’Brien declared that the next president must end the deal on “day one” and, without naming him, offered a rebuke of Bush. “We don’t need more information, we don’t need to wait to confirm the next Secretary of State, we need decisive leadership and we need it now.”
Click to expand...
Looks like some important decisions for Republicans to make in the primary. War on day one, or war after a cabinet is approved? What say you?
 
Let's see if we can out-psycho The Donald and get some press. Maybe something catchy like Death to Iran. If you have a CBD please, for the love of God, go stick your head in a bucket of mop water so the rest of us can kick you in the ass. The next world war against the US isn't going to be an invasion of soldiers but roach exterminators to put down this fucking madness.
 
I'll bet by the end of the second debate more than one GOP candidate will advocate nuking Iran to out hawk the others. Any takers?
 
I doubt that even respected polls showing a majority of respondents are very much against more war is going to dissuade the warmongers in Congress from backing off on their desire to go to war with Iran.

I attribute that to how much influence/ownage the folks that will immensely profit from such wars have over our Congress critters.

They'll simply do what Bush/Cheney did and many Americans will fall for it all over again. They're fervently hoping for another 9/11 so they can start the ball rolling.......again.

Hey, it's just good business practice to them.

What I'll look for as a sure sign that the insiders have a lock on going to war with Iran is a ramp up in defense industry stock prices just before the war drums start beating again.
 
Iran has been our biggest failing in the region since the 1980s. Afghanistan? Arm some Mujaheddin, abandon them fostering resentment and inadvertently leading to the creation of both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, then go to war with them a couple decades later when they come back and attack us in the worst act of terrorism this country has ever seen. Iraq? Give weapons to a ruthless dictator, watch him gas his own people, back track on your support only after he invades a country friendly to American business interests, get in two different wars, execute the leader and leave the region completely destabilized, inadvertently creating a breeding ground for ISIS. But Iran will be different! For one thing, it's larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined... so if you thought the fallout was bad from our dealings with those two, just you wait!

A wise person once said that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Apparently every single Republican since the 1980s has decided that was written by a communist, and our only real chance for success is to bomb some other Middle Eastern country, in a strategy that has been failing to produce positive results since the days of Saladin.
 
Last edited:
This would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous.

At least they get to be honest and campaign for starting a war. Better to be honest instead of continuing the Republican lie oft repeated here that sanctions are a magic cure for nuclear Iran and we don't need to do anything other than the status quo.
 
I don't suppose we'll be paying for this war anytime soon either right? More debt baby!!! Let's get it up to $28 trillion dollars!!!
 
JulesMaximus said:
I don't suppose we'll be paying for this war anytime soon either right? More debt baby!!! Let's get it up to $28 trillion dollars!!!
Click to expand...

Anyone willing to go to WAR to DESTROY Iran's nuclear program, is afraid of their development of nuclear weapons. Is afraid of being nuked. Tough to put a price tag on continued existence.
Anyone you think your arguing against - just wants to live, at any cost.
 
Jaskalas said:
Anyone willing to go to WAR to DESTROY Iran's nuclear program, is afraid of their development of nuclear weapons. Is afraid of being nuked. Tough to put a price tag on continued existence.
Click to expand...

Are there really people that think Iran would actually nuke anyone? Do they think Iran wants to be nuked?
 
Jaskalas said:
Anyone willing to go to WAR to DESTROY Iran's nuclear program, is afraid of their development of nuclear weapons. Is afraid of being nuked. Tough to put a price tag on continued existence.
Anyone you think your arguing against - just wants to live, at any cost.
Click to expand...

Horseshit. Someone living in the backwoods of Arkansas has a literal zero chance of dying due to an Iranian nuke. Even if Iran does get them (which they won't), and decide to engage in nuclear war with the USA (which they won't), they're not targeting rural America; they'd go for New York, LA, DC, and then our retaliation would completely obliterate them. And yet the vast majority of people who so fervently desire war with Iran don't live in those places. So, no, the majority of those people aren't legitimately afraid that their existence is threatened. And if they are, they are fucking morons, and they really shouldn't be driving our foreign policy.
 
Jaskalas said:
Anyone willing to go to WAR to DESTROY Iran's nuclear program, is afraid of their development of nuclear weapons. Is afraid of being nuked. Tough to put a price tag on continued existence.
Anyone you think your arguing against - just wants to live, at any cost.
Click to expand...

Or that person has an irrational fear of being nuked.

There are plenty of countries that have nuclear weapons, including ones equally antagonistic (or maybe moreso.) Why were/are you not advocating for war against North Korea? Against Pakistan?

It seems like the invasion list should be pretty considerable at this point.
 
eskimospy said:
Or that person has an irrational fear of being nuked.

There are plenty of countries that have nuclear weapons, including ones equally antagonistic (or maybe moreso.) Why were/are you not advocating for war against North Korea? Against Pakistan?

It seems like the invasion list should be pretty considerable at this point.
Click to expand...

Because once they have a nuclear weapon, we can't invade them. Iran knows this, which is why they'll stop at nothing to acquire nuclear weapons. It's what I would do if I were Iran.
 
Nebor said:
Because once they have a nuclear weapon, we can't invade them. Iran knows this, which is why they'll stop at nothing to acquire nuclear weapons. It's what I would do if I were Iran.
Click to expand...

That is retarded. India has nukes. It didn't stop Pakistan from invading them during the Kargil War. What was India to do? Nuke it's own territory? They took it back the hard way.

Similarly nukes or no nukes.. the thing corporations want most is Iranian Oil. The rest is just playing to fear because Israeli donors to U.S. politicans are the only one afraid of nukes and Israel is too much of a pussy to do anything about it by themself. They want us to fight their war for them.

Think about it.. from Israeli's viewpoint.. a few low income Americans died fighting in Iran and all it cost was a few political donations.. yawn who cares.. at least Israel doesn't have to worry about nukes and has access to cheap oil.

From an American's viewpoint.. this one image should say it all..
article-2151055-13480C65000005DC-570_634x369.jpg


If Iran attacks us, by all means lets bomb them but if they attack israel, yawn. Not a US territory or state. Not our concern.
 
Indus said:
That is retarded. India has nukes. It didn't stop Pakistan from invading them during the Kargil War. What was India to do? Nuke it's own territory? They took it back the hard way.

Similarly nukes or no nukes.. the thing corporations want most is Iranian Oil. The rest is just playing to fear because Israeli donors to U.S. politicans are the only one afraid of nukes and Israel is too much of a pussy to do anything about it by themself. They want us to fight their war for them.

Think about it.. from Israeli's viewpoint.. a few low income Americans died fighting in Iran and all it cost was a few political donations.. yawn who cares.. at least Israel doesn't have to worry about nukes and has access to cheap oil.

From an American's viewpoint.. this one image should say it all..
article-2151055-13480C65000005DC-570_634x369.jpg


If Iran attacks us, by all means lets bomb them but if they attack israel, yawn. Not a US territory or state. Not our concern.
Click to expand...

I had a long reply written out explaining the difference between a border skirmish (India and Pakistan) vs an existential threat (US invading Iran,) but then I remembered that you're that idiot from the Tom Selleck thread. What a surprise, you're an anti-semite as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top