A "proportionate" response to Iran

There is surely nothing well thought out about the assertion that "righties" are heavily invested in "military stock."

But the left is not at all interested in actual facts; just below-the-belt punches...

 

Well, let me get this straight:

It is okay for Iran to act provocatively--well, perhaps not really "okay"; but at least acceptable.

For the US to respond in a forceful way, however, would be entirely unacceptable.

Do I have that about right?

 

Take away all profit from wars and you righties will stop your pro war campaigns in an instant.

 

Modern wars are actually bad for profits. Because the profits are in procurement of new weapons. When a war is ongoing the defense spending goes to operations where the profit margins are small and predictable.

 

$39.5 billion is hardly a small profit:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ira...rome..69i57.6593j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

I really don't care about Iran. The middle east will always be a garbage fire, and just let it be the way it is. We should just move to electric cars and forget about the middle east. And lets just re-sign that Iran deal and call it a day.

 

The Warren Commission was 1964 and seriously flawed. The Select Committee was 1976 and included all the evidence of the Warren Commission plus all evidence that had been uncoverd for 12 years after that along with more modern investigation techniques.

 

I'd be shouting "Death to [inset nation]!" too if my government was overthrown, replaced by a brutal, bootlicking dictator followed by decades of crippling sanctions and global propaganda for having the gaul to overthrow that dictator.

On that note, "Death to Russia!" I remember when a certain political party would have agreed...

 

Yup, Iran has said any response by anyone would be unacceptable, so that's that.

The world is supposed to just ignore that the oil refinery was attacked, and that's that, too

 

The insane mullahs who start all those garbage fires will be more of a threat when they can rain down nuclear bombs across oceans.

 

An oil refinery that was fueling the war effort of an invading power. It was a totally legitimate attack and a response by anyone other than the Saudis would be inappropriate. The rules of war must be observed or else you're going to start seeing WMDs being deployed in Western cities and the Mideast turned into even more of a warzone than it already is.

 

Yes, it seems like a VERY reasonable question
If we are going to defend ourselves...
by attacking another country
Imo the minimum requirement would be some indication that we ACTUALLY ARE DEFENDING OURSELVES

Oh, i see no one can taunt us without the pentagon going to work?

I remember this has gone on for years, decades
And now p, suddenly we have to start a war?

This has also been going on for decades....
Not only with iran.... but with other countries
... are you saying that if there is terrorism in the ME, we gotta have a war?

We already have sanctions
These sanctions (in theory) had a purpose
As a matter of fact, my recollection is that there were going to be EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE
we already have EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE sanctions that will destroy iran’s economy
And now we need war too?

Yes

Which is why we sell them weapons so that they can defend THEMSELVES

And i believe that we need a better reason to send our citizens out killing people and risking their own lives

 

You accept that Iran blackmailing of the world, with the threat of WMDs, has started already. Gee, I cannot wait for them to actually acquire nuke tipped ICBMs.

 

By the way, the Iranians shot down one of our drones. That too was an act of war.

 

May have does not constitute proof of anything.

 

There is no may have. The Saudi Government was supporting the terrorists, that is a fact. Not Iran, Not Iraq, Not Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia.

 

But where is the proof that they had any advance knowledge of 9/11/01?

 

Link me to the Congressional Report. What year was that? Its idiocy.

 

That's contract value. Not profits. If the cost of fulfilling those contracts cost Halliburton 35 billion then 39.5 billion is small profits indeed.

 

The day WMDs are used against western cities...is the day before the Middle East burns from one end to the other with the exceptions of Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan.

 

WHO in

the royal family? And what are the names of the Ambassadors?

Have you read every word of the report or are you going by what someone else said about the report?

 

They don't do contracts in a war zone.. Its always cost plus.

 

If you are going to assert that I have taken quotes "out of context," then it is incumbent upon you to prove that I have done so.

Therefore, your proof would be...what, exactly?

 

Nope.. The SAG had yanked OBL's Saudi citizenship and declared AQ a terrorist org in 1994.. That's why OBL hated the Saudis and wanted the world to believe the Saudis carried out 9-11.

 

And your proof that Saudi Arabia " never let anyone else inspect [those missiles] to verify the evidence" would be...what, exactly?