'Take Military Action' Before They Get Nukes' Sen. Lindsey Graham

Originally posted by soldiermom
Oh geez. If we invade Iran, it will be with the blessing of Obama and his cohorts.

President Obama and cohorts are not the ones suggesting military action. Lets focus on Graham and his zionist clowns and what they see as a blessing.

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones


That's nothing but blatant speculation and quite a cheap shot. I doubt that the specter of war hinges on one man's sexual orientation.

My God, you people will grasp for anything to try and prove a point. Desperation anyone?

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones


It is rather hypocritical... I know. Hypocrisy seems to be a common even in DC these days. It seems to be more so common in the state of South Carolina given stanfords stunt, his comments on clinton. President Obama and his hypocrisy over the issue of FISA which Iv found my frustration on. Ensign from Nevada.... Gingrich and his "family values"... hypocrisy is nothing but a common even in DC Sancho.... thats the reality.

reply to post by soldiermom


I didn't make the accusation. It is in regular print; did You not see the link? As far as Mike Rivero's opinion???? Absolutely I can, and do agree with the Logic behind it.

Grasping at straws is still arguing war on Iran, after I presented an article directly from the IAEA stating that all newspapers should stop printing lies regarding what they say.................

Ignoring the very source elected by all World governments as the official decision maker is grasping at straws.

Please when You respond to this tell me also how full of poo the IAEA actually is................... Remember that the nations comprising the United Nations created that board...........

Really I would love to read Your screed concerning the IAEA.


Here so there is no debate over what I am saying........................


There should be no debate; the provocations for war are simple hype.
Press Release from IAEA
Recent Media Report on Iran
www.iaea.org...

At the Board of Governors´ meeting on 9 September 2009, Director General Mohamed ElBaradei warned that continuing allegations that the IAEA was withholding information on Iran are politically motivated and totally baseless.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by sanchoearlyjones]

Iran has agreed to allow IAEA inspections on Oct.25....Which means Israel will attack prior to that date, before the IAEA's report comes out saying Iran has No Nukes or is close to getting them....Israel would then lose that BOOGA BOOGA scare tactic.... so expect the SHTF prior to Oct.25th.

The war with Iran is not about oil, nukes, or a threat to Israel.

It's about Control.

The president of Iran is put there by the CIA. Take a look at:

www.nydailynews.com...

He is Jewish.

Hitler was installed into power too by Jewish bankers. Hence, the news about Hitler's skull that they found actually belonged to a woman:

www.foxnews.com...

There's also many various sources that said Hitler escaped to Argentina and actually died in 1987.

www.thesun.co.uk...

It's about Control.

Population Control.

Israel, France and Germany are driving home from the bar when they miss a sharp turn and plunge off a cliff killing them all, the next thing they know they are standing in front of the Pearly Gates. St Peter greets them, swings open the gates and leads them inside where they are astonished to see heaven filled with Ducks as far as the eye could see. St Peter tells them that in heaven you can do anything you want to do as long as you don't step on a Duck, because if you step on a Duck it quacks which makes all the others Ducks quack and all that noise will disturb God and he will punish you. So the three walk in and within moments France steps on a Duck, it quacks, which starts them all quacking and within minutes they see St Peter coming with Africa which he handcuffs to France for eternity as punishment for stepping on the Duck and leads them off. Germany and Israel see this and vow to be more careful, yet 4 hours later Germany steps on a Duck which quacks, which makes them all quack and again they see St Peter coming this time with Mexico, which he handcuffs to Germany and again leads them off. Israel is really scared now and watches every step he takes, days, weeks then months pass without Israel stepping on a duck. Then one day St Peter appears with America which he handcuffs to Israel, Israel can't believe it's luck getting attached to such a rich and powerful prize as America. When St Peter is gone Israel turns to America and asks " I don't know what I did to deserve this" America says" I don't know about you but I stepped on a Duck".

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones


your sheer genius sanchos. i get so tired of this blantant obvious crap. hell we gave north korea 3 seperate times $50 billion dollars then the nuts had the balls to show that they could launch a war head. did we do anything about it? nope. but now you have israel with their panties in a wad and we are suppose to jump on board. christ how many fires do we need to put out in this world, # we cannot even take care of ourselves right now!!!!

let israel take care of there own dam problems, we have plenty enough to worry about!

[edit on 4-10-2009 by tatersalad]

one last thing i apologize to all ats readers as my last post was very hot and overly heated, but question to all when does the insanity stop??????

reply to post by Southern Guardian


The first words out of Graham's mouth in that clip is that military action should be the last resort.

He goes on to say that if we must resort to military action, then that action should be decisive and unequivocal.

Of course with Obama in office, we don't have to worry about decisive or unequivocal military action, so what's the point of the thread?

Must you twist the words of others and outright put words in their mouths to satisfy your personal needs?



[edit on 2009/10/4 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


SG, if you find a quiet place, and think about it real HARD, don't you think you can figure out how to solve a potential nuclear problem within fifteen minutes?

If you're still having a problem figuring out the most direct, simple, reliable, and thorough solution, ask a kid in ninth grade. I'm sure any of them can figure it out very quickly.

I don't want to see any more boots on the ground.

But that doesn't preclude us from not following the most basic principle of warfare that has remained constant since time began.

One we in the US haven't followed since 1945.

reply to post by KAKUSA


Well, reinhardt's fave group is meeting in Crybabyland (Israel) Oct. 10-19. So...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The first words out of Graham's mouth in that clip is that military action should be the last resort.

Which by Mr Grahams and some members accounts is the only option left. Apparently alot of folks dont buy the use a sanctions on here and among the rightwing. So what else is there besides sanctions? Ofcourse Mr Graham said it was a last resort, because by his accounts, it is the only resort left.

My point is that military intervention should not be any resort due to this assumption that they are going to develop a WMD. Heck even if they develop one we should not police the world.

Israel has 200 WMD's the never obliged themselves to reveal, Pakistan and India have theirs, Nato can most certainly take care of themselves. We have no business, we dont have the resources, we are not the police of the world.

There shouldnt be any resort period. Its not our business, we are not the police of the world.

SG

Originally posted by dooper
SG, if you find a quiet place, and think about it real HARD, don't you think you can figure out how to solve a potential nuclear problem within fifteen minutes?

I know what your on about. I want you to say it straight. If this is your solution, come out and say it straight.

ask a kid in ninth grade.

Im not concerned about your personal attacks, Im concerned about you addressing the OP and saying it straight.

So, what are you talking about Dooper? I want to know what exactly your on about so I can address it.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


Which by Mr Grahams and some members accounts is the only option left.

Your first sentence is a patent misrepresentation of Mr. Graham complete interview, which I watched for myself this afternoon.

At no time did he express the opinion that military action is the only option

Either you are being dishonest or you have not taken the time to listen to the message that Graham was getting across.

Either way, it's pretty pathetic.

[edit on 2009/10/5 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Your first sentence is a patent misrepresentation of Mr. Graham complete interview, which I watched for myself this afternoon.

At no time did he express the opinion that military action is the only option

Yes, at no time did Mr Graham say that was the only option. Absolutley correct! he didnt say it at all, and I never made reference to that.

Either you are being dishonest

Dishonest in my argument against this warhawkish mentality? I made it clear, there shouldnt be any military resort period. If Mr Graham didnt believe in the necessity of military intervention, he wouldnt of made mention of it. If he believes we have no business yet "invading another nation for WMD's", he wouldnt of made any such mention of it.

You think Im dishonest? Others think Im incorrect in my analysis? They and you are more than welcome to your own personal views.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

I decided to write Mr. Graham, and will certainly do my part to get Chambliss and his ilk out of my House of Representatives:

To the Honorable Mr. Graham - I am appalled by your recent comments regarding Iran. How can you possibly justify not only pre-emptive but completely destructive military actions against any sovereign nation? Why do you continue extending doctrine of attacking first "for freedom"? Your rhetoric is the same as was used to attempt to justify attacking Iraq, a quagmire we find ourselves still deeply entrenched in almost a decade later, and surely for years to come. An Iraq that was in it's former condition and regime due directly to US support and intervention. Iran appears to share a great deal in common with Iraq at this current juncture in history. The shift of power there is also the result of direct US interference in 1953. The obvious lack of WMD's is being twisted into "probably cause" of them existing soon. A call for military action before being militarily assaulted is being passed through the media (recently by you and others) in order to try to build public support for Congressional acts to "help" the Administration have "tools" to deal with Iran on an interventionist basis. Attempts to invalidate the leadership in the country and create a separation between the leaders and the people therein who "want freedom but need our help" through said Congressional acts. What, about any of these warmongering notions, is in alignment with any of our founding values and Constitutional commitments? Regarding Iran's history, they are doing better than we are on the count of invading other countries. They have historically stated multiple times that they do not wish to pursue a nuclear weapon, but energy. In this moment of intense rhetoric for possibility, why has the rhetoric of intent not been given equal purchase? What about the rhetoric of fact? The facts are that the base in Qom is not "new", but that it's existence has been known to the USA at least since 1993. The facts are that Iran imports more than 40% of it's refined oil products/gasoline, in large part due to war and fear generation to stem investment into their oil refinement industries. Yes, we are creating a need for them to look to alternate means of energy such as nuclear by propagating rhetoric to discourage investment in their economy and impose sanctions against countries who export fuel to them. Iran has voluntarily signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaties, recommended international non-proliferation and nuclear decommissioning standards and granted the IAEA access to their facilities. The agreement that Iran has been accused of failing to uphold was a voluntary supplement to provide notice of the building of a facility, instead of the norm of notification upon activation, that was not even ratified by their parliament. Announcements from Iran that this voluntary supplement would no longer be honored came after western decisions to discontinue true talks with them regarding their nuclear program. The same program that was announced in 1950, was aided by the USA in 1960 with a reactor, and was projected to increase to upwards of 40 reactors by 1994. In the midst of this apparent disinformation assault through the media, little attention is given to other nuclear powers in that region who absolutely refuse to sign a non-proliferation treaty, much less deal with the IAEA or any UN requests regarding curbing the creation of nuclear weapons. North Korea has actually created a nuclear weapon and is being left on the sideline with minimal attention. Israel has an estimated 80-250 nuclear weapons and refuses to sign a treaty OR submit to inspections. This is the same country who undertook unilateral and pre-emptive attacks on Iraqi nuclear facilities, despite being a UN member and agreeing to the articles of the UN Charter which promotes the sovereignty of member nations and an agreement to deal peacefully and respectfully with member states. Israel, who has again threatened to execute a pre-emptive strike against a UN member state on the basis of a perceived threat. Iran is in no means a completely innocent bystander in all of this. There are people making policy who are obstructing movements towards peace and a greater acceptance within the international community. However, the same could be said of the United States. With comments such as yours, threatening military violence in the extreme absence of any attack on the United States, how are we extending a hand of fellowship? Your remarks may have been taken contextually had they been balanced with the call for other countries, including allies such as Israel, to heed the call of nuclear non-proliferation, but unfortunately they only seem to be a flagrant attempt to incite fear and a call for war. Please reconsider your militant and unsubstantiated policy against Iran and become a true representative of the American public. We do NOT call for military action in Iran. We do NOT call for interventionist policy and global policing and enforcement. We do NOT call for inequality in the treatment of UN member states in their need to promote nuclear non-proliferation. Last, but not least of all, we do NOT call for our elected representatives to disseminate warmongering and inconsistent policy remarks which create a divisive and detrimental environment for our country. With Kindest Regards,

One man can 'speak his mind' and call for war, many people can 'speak their minds' and get called racists and war mongers, haters and terrorists.
If the people said NO TO WAR, they'd be labelled homegrown terrorists and put on watch lists, monitored and jailed.
But because they choose to not follow the corporate line they get spat on.
Politicians should ASK their constituates before mouthing off any 'personal' opinion especially one as loaded as that IMO...

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Do you think there is ever a justification for war?

Sometimes war is necessary. Not saying it is in this situation yet, but sometimes it is in fact the ONLY option.

So, the good Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, wants military action against Iran, if they should happen to get the bomb? Well, I am with him, just as long as he is willing to don his flak jacket, helmet, and pick up a rifle and head to the front with the rest of us. Now, that is an iceberg's chance in hell. He is just spouting rhetoric, and harmful rhetoric, at that. Everything in stages, because if the West doesn't get this one right, there will be hell to pay.

This whole crisis is like a game of hot potato. For instance, you have Israel tossing it the US, then the US tosses it EU, then to Russia, then back to the US, and back to Israel, and so on so forth. None of them want to hold on to this potato very long, because if they do, it will burn them quite harshly. This game, in which the rest is quarterbacking isn't going to be a cake walk, or a parlor game, but a war of epic proportions, fraught with diabolical outcomes for the world. It will become the meat grinder we all fear is only the next war away. No longer will warfare be of a voluntary nature of those that enlist, but a war with a draft. As the countries involved become frustrated at the stalemate, and seemingly no end to carnage in sight, it could go nuclear very quickly. Then Pandora's box is opened, and the world changes irrevocably, like when nukes were used the last time in the Second World War. This game has world implications and not something be taken lightly.

I say to the pundits and politicians to put up or shut up! Let this thing play out, and if Iran should get a nuke, more power to them, but know this, the US and Israel has nukes, and will use them, if missiles leave the launch pad. With the harsh warning above, the Persians aren't going to risk their families and homes in that scenario, they will go away very quickly. Mutual Assured Destruction worked in the Cold War, and it can work in this situation. The military option should be the last resort, and the nations involved, should wait ,and let this thing play out with the sanctions, IAEA inspections, and diplomatic efforts. On this issue the West is holding all the cards, and sooner or later, the Iranians will realize that.



[edit on 5-10-2009 by Jakes51]