1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Iran: More gunboat diplomacy

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by jgmacg, Oct 25, 2007.

  1. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    That would be the big stick part.
     
  2. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    Except that they're continually waving their big stick around at anyone who'll look while screaming.
     
  3. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    How about "Speak not at all, and our stick's bogged down in Iraq for the next decade"?
     
  4. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    I never thought in a million years I would think this, but if Bush tells the military to attack Iran without clear authorization from Congress, what would it take to remove the current administration from power to keep it from happening?
    A straight up coup? Can the Congress tell the military to refuse an order from the President? How would that work? And is that really what Iran is about, a confrontation over presidential power?
    A Bush-ordered unprovoked attack against a peaceful Iran is veering him off into James Bond villian land.
     
  5. Beaker

    Beaker Active Member

    I'd expect a lot of military resignations at the least.
     
  6. "Peaceful"?
     
  7. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    Since the Iran-Iraq war, whom exactly has Iran attacked militarily?

    You may be concerned about their nuclear program, but they haven't exactly invaded anyone's country.
     
  8. OnTheRiver

    OnTheRiver Active Member

    Can someone explain why we went after Iraq first when the obvious threat-level, from greatest to least, was obviously:

    1.) North Korea (they have a nuke)
    2.) Iran (they're getting a nuke)
    3.) Iraq (Couldn't put up a two-day defense of own country)

    Were we that loopy, or did we just want to go after the easy part of the schedule first, like the Big Ten football teams do?
     
  9. My guess is the latter.

    Had we first gone after NK or Iran (which apparently is the Mideast version of Switzerland), would that have been OK? I'm guessing no (not necessarily with you, but with a lot of the anti-Iraq-war people in general).
     
  10. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    What's your standard for going to war, L_B?
     
  11. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member


    "The latter" is no guess. It's dead-on. The boys wanted to put on a show about how easy life could be, with them calling the shots.

    Whoops.
     
  12. Obviously, it's a last resort. But years and years of talking doesn't seem to have solved much.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page