Republican Hawks and Republican Doves

[Jen]

I would not support any sort of invasion into Iran at this point. If they nuked someone, maybe than I would support it. I don't even understand why you asked me these inane and presumptuous questions since I have stated this before.

Just out of curiosity Jen. Would you favor an invasion of Iran to foster regime change because of the threat of WMDs? That is what Ron Paul worries about. If we invaded Iran, how many troops would it take? How much would it cost? How long would we occupy Iran? How would our nation-building go? What seems reasonable to you as a conservative?

 

[Jen]

I present support documentation to posts that are viable and made by posters who I consider to be serious. I don't present any support documentation to anyone seeking to destroy me or my reputation here. Why bother with that? My error is that I tend to think that all posters can be serious so I try to engage them in discussion. Some are frivolous and will always remain that way. I need to learn to walk away from that.

Relly Jen why do you keep repeating the same garbage without any facts to support it day after day, week after week. Are you incapable of understanding that just because you wish something to be true, that does not in any way mean it is?


"except that he doesn't know what he's doing so he has us going into the wrong places and staying out of the wrong places"

but just in case you might want to tell us what places these would be, I am sure most of us on the left will pass that information to OBAMA.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Just a test Jen and an honest inquiry. What sparked the question was your assertion that Obama confronted/appeased the wrong countries. Given what has been in the news, I figured that you were thinking about the Arab Spring (Egypt and Libya in particular) and Iran. Now, I think that there might actually be some difference between a Romney response to the Arab Spring and an Obama response to the Arab Spring. I do think that - on balance - the change has been for the good. But it will take awhile for things to settle down. If Nixon could go to China and talk to Mao-Tse-Tung, Netanyahu can talk to the Palestineans and Islamist parties. There are relatively moderate Islamist parties and they do not like Al-Quaida. The purpose - in the end - is to isolate the radical Islamists. But that will take awhile. I think that Obama is making progress on this. I think that Romney is a novice who will be led around by the nose by the same neo-conservatives who gave us the Iraq War. On Iran, IMHO, Romney is blowing hot air and blowing it in dangerous ways. Ron Paul is correct to point out that rhetoric like Romney is using did help lead to the invasion of Iraq. Even if you say that you support internal rebels (and actually Obama did indicate sympathy, the evidence from Libya and Syria is that it will be difficult if not impossible to overthrow a tyrannical regime without some sort of outside military support. I think that the bellocisity is just entrenching the mullahs even more and making it harder for internal dissent to be effective. So Romney's sabre rattling is counter-productive though it does help macho type hawks feel powerful and in control. I just think that it is a stupid style of diplomacy. Fortunately, there are Republicans like Paul and Huntsman who understand these problems. (BTW, if you stay in touch with the Middle East news. you will notice that the Israelis are having second thoughts about the bellicose approach as well.)

Having said all this, if you had other countries in mind when you commented on Obama's supposed bungling, I am all ears.

I would not support any sort of invasion into Iran at this point. If they nuked someone, maybe than I would support it. I don't even understand why you asked me these inane and presumptuous questions since I have stated this before.