Some Allies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]lucasa wrote:
hedo wrote:
More allies at work…

It remains to be confirmed whether the serial numbers on the Steyrs found in Iraq match those from the 2004 sale–if they do, it ought to prompt a top-to-bottom review of all Austrian military contracts. Meantime, is it too much to expect American journalists and Members of Congress to devote as much skepticism to Iran’s motives and behavior as they do to Mr. Bush’s?

This is getting to be fucking retarded. You wouldn’t hold gun manufacturers responsible for violence committed with their guns in this country, right (much less the gov’t of said country)?

Would you feel so much better if they had found Barrett (via Afghanistan!) or Accuracy International or McMillan or any of a number of other private companies can sell .50 cal. rifles to anyone they please? At least then we wouldn’t have to worry about the Austrians as well.

Suddenly the Axis of Evil is any country that allowed a gun that was manufactured in their borders to find its way into Iraq?
[/quote]

lucasa,

Remind me which party blames the U.S. for “arming Iraq?”

Were you up in arms about the U.S. being the TENTH largest supporter of weaponery to saddam?

Logically, if you held the U.S. Government responsible for arming saddam, then you have to hold austria responsible.

Oh, during the majority of the time the U.S. was doing business with saddam, he was at least a marginal ally.

There can be no such confusion about iran. austria knows what they are arming. They are also aware which soldiers are likely to be hurt.

JeffR

62

[quote]lucasa wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

That still doesn’t make Israel supplying high-tech arms to a rival any less galling.

This is just as much a non-issue as the discovery of Iranian ordinance in Iraq.

Are you even listening to etaco?

  1. Calling China a rival is a stretch. Especially considering their international military incapability and the fact that Chinese business holds a good chunk of our foreign debt.
  2. So what if Israel sold arms, parts, or intel on the F-16 to China? We sold them the planes and the design is no longer in production for the U.S. military. Would you feel better if the China bought the planes direct from Lockheed or got it off Ebay?

And if you didn’t catch it, all the F-14s patrolling the skies over Iran were “Made in the U.S.A.”.[/quote]

You’re oversimplifying dramatically. I said myself that I don’t think China is a peer competitor by any means, and that they are decades behind us militarily in many areas. But dismissing the F-16 as ancient and useless is wrong, the key issue is the avionics, which have been updated dramatically, i.e. an F-16 built in the early '80s is dramatically different from those that entered service in the '90s, let alone today. Upgraded Indian F-16s allegedly beat U.S. F-18s in dogfights about a year ago, although there is talk it was staged to build support for the F-22.

China is not an enemy, and we should try very very hard not to make it one, but a conflict with them over Taiwan or something else is possible. And yet Israel helps them build their newest fighter, with American technology we give them. That’s fucked up, but we should expect no less from a country that’s stolen our nuclear secrets and fired on one of our ships.

63

[quote]lucasa wrote:
hedo wrote:
More allies at work…

It remains to be confirmed whether the serial numbers on the Steyrs found in Iraq match those from the 2004 sale–if they do, it ought to prompt a top-to-bottom review of all Austrian military contracts. Meantime, is it too much to expect American journalists and Members of Congress to devote as much skepticism to Iran’s motives and behavior as they do to Mr. Bush’s?

This is getting to be fucking retarded. You wouldn’t hold gun manufacturers responsible for violence committed with their guns in this country, right (much less the gov’t of said country)?

Would you feel so much better if they had found Barrett (via Afghanistan!) or Accuracy International or McMillan or any of a number of other private companies can sell .50 cal. rifles to anyone they please? At least then we wouldn’t have to worry about the Austrians as well.

Suddenly the Axis of Evil is any country that allowed a gun that was manufactured in their borders to find its way into Iraq?
[/quote]

American companies wouldn’t sell sniper rifles to Iran or terrorist organizations. Regardless, they were asked not to make the sale , by the US Govt., and chose to do so. Is pointing that out an issue?

I didn’t make any of the points your refuting regarding manufacturers or those who sell product to individuals.

Would it have been OK to sell explosives to the Red Brigade in the 70’s and 80’s if they promised not to use them for evil and signed a document to that effect?

64

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
hedo wrote:
… Meantime, is it too much to expect American journalists and Members of Congress to devote as much skepticism to Iran’s motives and behavior as they do to Mr. Bush’s?

But Keith Olbermann would rather paint the Iranians as harmless so he can call Bush a liar.

keith olbermann is a despicable hack.

I wonder if the dems who are so threatened by Fox News will join in the condemnation of keith olbermann.

If they don’t, they are hypocrites. If our dem pals don’t come down hard on olbermann, then they are illustrating that they aren’t trully interested in balanced journalism. They really fear messages that don’t follow their party line.

I’ll be waiting.

JeffR

P.S. None of the usual, “I don’t watch keith olbermann, so I can’t comment” crap. You feel justified in commenting on Fox news without any real knowledge.
[/quote]

Not to make this an Olbermann thread but that guy has really gone over the edge in an attempt to drum up viewers. I wonder if it is working.

65

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
… Upgraded Indian F-16s allegedly beat U.S. F-18s in dogfights about a year ago, although there is talk it was staged to build support for the F-22.

…[/quote]

I hadn’t heard that. The story I heard was the US pilots were not allowed to use some of the technological advances that they normally use everyday so instead of the leveling the playing field it actually favored the Indian pilots because the dogfights were staged the same way they train.

Throwing the fights would be cunning as hell.

66

[quote]hedo wrote:
…American companies wouldn’t sell sniper rifles to Iran or terrorist organizations. Regardless, they were asked not to make the sale , by the US Govt., and chose to do so. Is pointing that out an issue?

…[/quote]

American companies are not allowed to sell parts for wastewater treatment equipment to Iran. American companies can’t really sell anything to Iran.

Austria selling weapons to Iran is a slap in the face. It just shows that they are a piss poor “ally”.

67

[quote]JeffR wrote:

lucasa,

Remind me which party blames the U.S. for “arming Iraq?”[/quote]

Relevance? I assume you would mean the party I voted against?

What’s Austria’s rank wrt Iran, let alone the Iraqi insurgency?

You’re logic is based on a false premise (Presumably, based on your false perception of my political beliefs).

Logically, Austria is no more culpable for arming insurgents than the U.S. is for arming Saddam or Colt is for the gun used on in a liquor-store robbery.

And the Austrians sold the guns to fight the drug war.

[quote]There can be no such confusion about iran. austria knows what they are arming. They are also aware which soldiers are likely to be hurt.

JeffR[/quote]

It’s not arming, it’s armed. And you act like Iran wouldn’t have had these weapons if Austria hadn’t sold them to them. They’re building nuclear reactors for Christ’s sake, I think .50 cal. bolt action rifles is well within their capability. Furthermore, and this can’t be stressed enough, every F-14 in Iran can deploy was bought and shipped directly from the US of A. I’d rather face off mano e mano with a random insurgent in Iraq using a .50 cal. Austrian rifle than a trained airman using an American jet fighter in Iran.

68

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

China is not an enemy, and we should try very very hard not to make it one, but a conflict with them over Taiwan or something else is possible. And yet Israel helps them build their newest fighter, with American technology we give them. That’s fucked up, but we should expect no less from a country that’s stolen our nuclear secrets and fired on one of our ships.[/quote]

Yeah, we should just let Clinton give our nuclear secrets directly to China.

I don’t have a problem with Israel being cast in a bad light, they’ve done plenty of evil. I have a problem with an ally being portrayed in a bad light because they helped a largely non-competitive (militarily) nation build jet fighters.

And IMO, I’m not exaggerating. 1) The F-18 is arguably inferior to the F-16 to begin with (lower thrust-to-weight, lower top speed, lower ceiling) and the two planes were originally designed and built within a decade of each other. 2) Even if China had superior technology, they would have to field at least equivalent numbers of equivalent skill and wrt to their air force, with these qualities lagging, starting from a 30 yr. deficit is too much.

69

[quote]hedo wrote:

American companies wouldn’t sell sniper rifles to Iran or terrorist organizations. Regardless, they were asked not to make the sale , by the US Govt., and chose to do so. Is pointing that out an issue?

I didn’t make any of the points your refuting regarding manufacturers or those who sell product to individuals.[/quote]

Really? I own rifles that could be considered sniper rifles and I’m relatively free to show up on any battlefield with them to fight, or export them to a country where they could quite easily end up being used against American or allied forces five, 10, or 20 yrs. down the line. It’s not the manufacturer’s or the US’s fault that I chose to do that. Even more absurd, the sale of the rifles in question was prior to the war. Statute of limitations? Ex post facto? Mens rea… no DA in America would even begin to try to pin this on the Austrian gov’t, or the manufacturer, but you guys have pretty much convicted Austria. Hell, my understanding is that the rifles were still in shipping crates.

The U.S. Government bought and shipped Nifty Fifties to the Afghan Mujahedeen in the 80’s the ATF oversaw and approved the whole deal. Even if you could guarantee that those arms didn’t leave the hands of the Mujahedeen (for say…Al Quaeda), the Mujahedeen are an element of the insurgency. I’m not saying Iran isn’t acting in support of the insurgency, just that it’s absurd and counterproductive to start picking up every weapon that shows up on the battlefield and cast the country that made it in a bad light. Maybe the Brits were justified in doubting us every time they found an American guns in the hands of the IRA. To be clear, I’m against blaming the U.S. for this, but I’m against it for everyone equally.

70

[quote]lucasa wrote:
hedo wrote:

American companies wouldn’t sell sniper rifles to Iran or terrorist organizations. Regardless, they were asked not to make the sale , by the US Govt., and chose to do so. Is pointing that out an issue?

I didn’t make any of the points your refuting regarding manufacturers or those who sell product to individuals.

Really? I own rifles that could be considered sniper rifles and I’m relatively free to show up on any battlefield with them to fight, or export them to a country where they could quite easily end up being used against American or allied forces five, 10, or 20 yrs. down the line. It’s not the manufacturer’s or the US’s fault that I chose to do that. Even more absurd, the sale of the rifles in question was prior to the war. Statute of limitations? Ex post facto? Mens rea… no DA in America would even begin to try to pin this on the Austrian gov’t, or the manufacturer, but you guys have pretty much convicted Austria. Hell, my understanding is that the rifles were still in shipping crates.

Would it have been OK to sell explosives to the Red Brigade in the 70’s and 80’s if they promised not to use them for evil and signed a document to that effect?

The U.S. Government bought and shipped Nifty Fifties to the Afghan Mujahedeen in the 80’s the ATF oversaw and approved the whole deal. Even if you could guarantee that those arms didn’t leave the hands of the Mujahedeen (for say…Al Quaeda), the Mujahedeen are an element of the insurgency. I’m not saying Iran isn’t acting in support of the insurgency, just that it’s absurd and counterproductive to start picking up every weapon that shows up on the battlefield and cast the country that made it in a bad light. Maybe the Brits were justified in doubting us every time they found an American guns in the hands of the IRA. To be clear, I’m against blaming the U.S. for this, but I’m against it for everyone equally.
[/quote]

Kind of all over the place with this but I’ll stick to the point.

In 2004 the war was well under way. The swarm of legal concepts your threw out are moot. And yes a manufacturer in the US who sold weapons to Iran would be prosecuted by a US Attorney, not a DA.

I’m not talking about every weapon, I’m talking about .50cal. Steyer rifles marketed to the military. The same rifles that were requested not to be shipped. Europe calls for sanctions yet sells weapons to Iran when specifically requested not too by an ally. You would have to be extremely naive to take the Iranians at their word that they wouldn’t be used in Iraq or by Hamas.

800 50 cals. with optics is a big order. It’s not a common weapon. Barrett, LAR, HK and maybe a few others make them. It’s a big run for someone. Now Steyer can’t sell to the US Govt. and that will trickle down to US police agencies due to procurement rules. It was a dumb move on a lot of levels.

The Afgani Mujahedeen were allies of ours against the Soviets. Nobody protested our helping them, except the Soviets. Are you implying that the Austrians are actively working against the US in Iraq or are they putting commercial interests ahead of support of an ally?

So as long as the Iranians agree not to export weapons to others, they should be allowed to buy them? What recourse exists if they do?

71

[quote]hedo wrote:

In 2004 the war was well under way. The swarm swarm of legal concepts your threw out are moot. And yes a manufacturer in the US who sold weapons to Iran would be prosecuted by a US Attorney, not a DA.[/quote]

The war between the U.S. and Iran? And you’re tossing all of the legal concepts even though you only addressed one. I know the US attorney’s office would deal with businesses selling arms to the enemy, I more meant the DA in the sense that if we were talking about people instead of nations, the case against Austria wouldn’t even begin to hold water.

So you only care if the soldiers were killed with the .50 cal. Steyr rifles. I wonder what the ratio of purchased Amercan-made arms in the hands of insurgents to Austrian-made arms is. Any idea?

What? Dozens of companies (Accuracy International, Armalite, Barrett, EDM Arms, Spider Arms) chamber rifles for the .50 BMG not to mention the equally numerous ammunitions manufacturers that should be equally culpable. And they can all buy and sell anywhere in the US except California. To hang that hat on anyone except the California legislature is misplacing the blame.

First of all, what economic interest? We’re talking about maybe $8M worth of rifles here. Some portion of the Iraq war was justified with WMDs, I’m betting the cost of that portion is enormous compared to $8M. As far as soldier deaths goes, I’d rather tear Rumsfeld a new one for foregoing $5M in body armor and vehicular armor than bother with the Austrians.

And I’m saying that, at worst, they are putting commercial interests ahead of support of an “ally” and that to think we do any differently is wrong (see Taiwan and Chinese/US economic relations). I guess, IMO, the issue is more the US choosing allies and the resources they share poorly (A diplomatic fog of war?) rather than blaming two nations for doing business. Seriously, we justified the removal of Saddam (partially) based on crimes in the Iran-Iraq war. We aren’t at war with Iran, they fly our jets, Austria isn’t a NATO member nation, nor a member of the “Coalition of the Willing” and isn’t at war with Iraq or Iran.

72

[quote]lucasa wrote:
hedo wrote:

In 2004 the war was well under way. The swarm swarm of legal concepts your threw out are moot. And yes a manufacturer in the US who sold weapons to Iran would be prosecuted by a US Attorney, not a DA.

The war between the U.S. and Iran? And you’re tossing all of the legal concepts even though you only addressed one. I know the US attorney’s office would deal with businesses selling arms to the enemy, I more meant the DA in the sense that if we were talking about people instead of nations, the case against Austria wouldn’t even begin to hold water.

I’m not talking about every weapon, I’m talking about .50cal. Steyer rifles marketed to the military. The same rifles that were requested not to be shipped. Europe calls for sanctions yet sells weapons to Iran when specifically requested not too by an ally. You would have to be extremely naive to take the Iranians at their word that they wouldn’t be used in Iraq or by Hamas.

So you only care if the soldiers were killed with the .50 cal. Steyr rifles. I wonder what the ratio of purchased Amercan-made arms in the hands of insurgents to Austrian-made arms is. Any idea?

800 50 cals. with optics is a big order. It’s not a common weapon. Barrett, LAR, HK and maybe a few others make them. It’s a big run for someone. Now Steyer can’t sell to the US Govt. and that will trickle down to US police agencies due to procurement rules. It was a dumb move on a lot of levels.

What? Dozens of companies (Accuracy International, Armalite, Barrett, EDM Arms, Spider Arms) chamber rifles for the .50 BMG not to mention the equally numerous ammunitions manufacturers that should be equally culpable. And they can all buy and sell anywhere in the US except California. To hang that hat on anyone except the California legislature is misplacing the blame.

The Afgani Mujahedeen were allies of ours against the Soviets. Nobody protested our helping them, except the Soviets. Are you implying that the Austrians are actively working against the US in Iraq or are they putting commercial interests ahead of support of an ally?

First of all, what economic interest? We’re talking about maybe $8M worth of rifles here. Some portion of the Iraq war was justified with WMDs, I’m betting the cost of that portion is enormous compared to $8M. As far as soldier deaths goes, I’d rather tear Rumsfeld a new one for foregoing $5M in body armor and vehicular armor than bother with the Austrians.

And I’m saying that, at worst, they are putting commercial interests ahead of support of an “ally” and that to think we do any differently is wrong (see Taiwan and Chinese/US economic relations). I guess, IMO, the issue is more the US choosing allies and the resources they share poorly (A diplomatic fog of war?) rather than blaming two nations for doing business. Seriously, we justified the removal of Saddam (partially) based on crimes in the Iran-Iraq war. We aren’t at war with Iran, they fly our jets, Austria isn’t a NATO member nation, nor a member of the “Coalition of the Willing” and isn’t at war with Iraq or Iran.[/quote]

I think your reaching with a lot of those points.

A military buying from an arms manufacturer is what I’m talking about.

The Iranians bought the planes when they were allies in the mid 70’s and really has nothing to do with Iran buying rifles in 2004 while under the threat of UN sanctions and giving them to terrorists, despite signing an agreement not to do so. I know your trying to tie the two together but they have no relationship and I’m not buying it.

You reference in 2004 the war hadn’t started. Since we were talking about the insurgency in IRAQ, and we were fighting those insurgents, the obvious assumption is that was the war you were talking about.

As to all of the other weapons in the hands of insurgents etc. All good points but not relevant to the argument. Armalite didn’t sell weapons to the the Iranians, nor did the other companies. Steyer did. Those companies may chamber that round but I doubt they are geared up to fill an 800 weapon order either.

As to commercial interests it may only be $8MM but do you really think that order will compensate for lost business in the United States from Federal and State agencies and departments, backlash from shooters and potential import retaliation by ATF.

73

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Using terrorism as a goal INVALIDATES whatever cause you fight for. No matter what it is. Period.
[/quote]

I hope you now understand how the rest of the world feels about the so-called “war on terror”. The 2nd Iraq war was surely an act of international terrorism. The difference between Bush and Ben Laden being that 1) one has been elected 2) caused a hundred times more victims.
For the laughs, I’m
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20925632-38200,00.html

I could go on about the dozens of countries that were wrecked by US interventionism but I’ll sum it up by reminding you that Mandela’s ANC was considered by Reagan & co to be a terrorist movemement throughout Apartheid. Another documented supporter of the Apartheid government was Israel. Which brings us to the Palestine-Israel issue. Since there’s little hope for it to be solved in your lifetime, I urge you to get more insight on the history of conflict as I’m sure it’ll put things into perspective. The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict

I know Arabs fcsked up when they refused to accept the right of a Zionist state to exist back in the early 20th century, but when grannys start blowing themselves up, there has to be a reason.

74

[quote]hedo wrote:

I think your reaching with a lot of those points.[/quote]

Possibly, I think to assert that Austria did anything other than maybe make a bad decision is reaching. I’m working from the “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” ideology, how far am I reaching? A gun seller sells guns to a shady character who immediately goes and hands the gun to a felon who shoots a policeman, I don’t blame the seller for the crime unless the majority of gun-related crimes committed trace back to this seller or unless the majority of this seller’s guns end up being used in gun-related crimes.

You may say that substituting Steyr, Iran, insurgents, and US for seller, character, felon, and policeman is oversimplifying, but IMO, adding complexity and nuance tha the situation actually includes does just that; make things much less clear and more subtle.

So you’d have a problem if we sold guns to an Afghan warlord to fight the heroin trade in Afghanistan (What if he used those guns to kill Uzbeki or Pakestani people?) or if we sold guns to a Lebanese militia to fight Hezbollah (What if they used those guns to seize an embassy in Saudi Arabia?). I know this is playing the ‘what if’ game, but that’s the game that everyone was playing when Austria sold the weapons.

That’s a very America-centric view. By “we” you mean the US and Austria? Not to say that an America-centric view is wrong. A lot of what we do has been right (IMO) and what we’ve done wrong is justified by mens rea, but Austria clearly doesn’t hold that view (as we don’t hold their neutrality view). On top of that, Austria is using all the same mens rea to justify their actions. And you could easily argue that if we’d adopted more of this neutrality after WWII, we would have no reason to be dropping billions of dollars and thousands of lives into Iraq (which makes $8M in guns look like a molehill).

This is stretching my analogy a little where it wasn’t meant to go. Armalite is entitled to sell weapons (with proper gov’t approval) to say… India even though they may be enemies of some of our allies or supporting enemies of our allies no matter what the UN says or NATO says.

Exactly my point, the economic incentive of a manufacturer under a neutral gov’t defying international outcry and doing this business that would cause a very predictable backlash? The Austrian gov’t either made a mistake thinking they could help Iran join the Western World or fight the drug war (or both), or they were implicit in supporting the insurgency. If you’re going to say they are implicitly supporting the insurgents, it’s going to have to be more and/or more direct than through these guns. If it was a mistake and apologies are in order, there are bigger mistakes with bigger apologies that are closer to the top of my list.

75

[quote]lixy wrote:

I hope you now understand how the rest of the world feels about the so-called “war on terror”. The 2nd Iraq war was surely an act of international terrorism. The difference between Bush and Ben Laden being that 1) one has been elected 2) caused a hundred times more victims.[/quote]

  1. mens rea. One sought to kill civilians to make a political statement, murder was implicit in his goals. The other seeks to free civilians any killing is a byproduct.
76

[quote]JeffR wrote:
You’ll see various posters like dirty harry/tme/orion/reckless saying things like, “iran won’t have the bomb for 10-15 years” or “iran isn’t really a threat.”[/quote]

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realise that Iran is at the very least, five years away from having sufficiently enriched fuel to make a bomb. You don’t need heaps of common sense to realise that noone is stupid enough to detonate a nuke (I guess someone already did in WWII. Ooops!).

I’ll take the word of insiders like Scott Ritter or Al-Baradae any time over those liars in War-shington! Who’s the nuclear experts here.

Iran agreed to negociate in 2003 but was turned down by Bush.

How the hell do you sleep at night knowing your that you finance the killing of innocents and topplings of democratically elected governments? Surely ZMA isn’t enough.

77

[quote]lixy wrote:

You don’t need heaps of common sense to realise that noone is stupid enough to detonate a nuke (I guess someone already did in WWII. Ooops!).[/quote]

Yeah, If only we could’ve sat out WWII and the Cold War. The world could’ve had its choice of Imperial Japan, the Thousand Year Reich, or being run into the ground by the Soviets. Sweden’s neutrality has been their luxury (Did you think the Nazis were going to surround Sweden, defeat the allies and then allow Sweden to just remain neutral?). And because of the US and the allies or the US and NATO, dumbasses like you get to sit around and call the US the most terrible and brutal empire to rule the planet.

“What the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United States so that this could be about the United States and Iran,” said Rice, who was Bush’s national security adviser when the fax was received. “Now it is Iran and the international community, and Iran has to answer to the international community. I think that’s the strongest possible position to be in.”

Are you saying we should’ve been more unilateral wrt Iran?

78

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Ummmmm…

GDollar:

By no means am I disagreeing…those are some important points…

But a lot can be accomplished with a million plus soldiers… a lot of tanks and artillery and a few well placed tactical nukes…

Mufasa

You still don’t understand the deal here. Those million plus soldiers can’t get anywhere. The ships, planes, and logistics network to be able to use them far from China’s borders simply don’t exist. No one in the Middle East is scared of a Chinese invasion, because it couldn’t happen.[/quote]

Haha. Never thought of all this…but it is true that a Chinese Army cannot go anywhere without a Chinese navy or Air Force…both of which America would blow out of the water in the first three months…

America has the upper hand in a war with China, and probably will for at least the next 50 years (conservatively).

On the topic of Israel…yea, fuck’em. They cannot be trusted any more than any other country in the world. This stuff proves that.

79

[quote]lucasa wrote:
lixy wrote:

…

Iran agreed to negociate in 2003 but was turned down by Bush.

“What the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United States so that this could be about the United States and Iran,” said Rice, who was Bush’s national security adviser when the fax was received. “Now it is Iran and the international community, and Iran has to answer to the international community. I think that’s the strongest possible position to be in.”

Are you saying we should’ve been more unilateral wrt Iran?[/quote]

Nope. He is just taking potshots at the US. No matter what we do we are wrong.

80

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lucasa wrote:
lixy wrote:

…

Iran agreed to negociate in 2003 but was turned down by Bush.

“What the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United States so that this could be about the United States and Iran,” said Rice, who was Bush’s national security adviser when the fax was received. “Now it is Iran and the international community, and Iran has to answer to the international community. I think that’s the strongest possible position to be in.”

Are you saying we should’ve been more unilateral wrt Iran?

Nope. He is just taking potshots at the US. No matter what we do we are wrong.[/quote]

I think it is time we model ourselves after Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, pre-WWII Japan,Italy,Germany, just to name a few. But then again, if we did, we would have taken over the world by now. God knows they would have if they could have.