Quote :

"i've been saying for months that I think the US is basically making up reasons to attack Iran, just like we did to attack Iraq, but now there actually is a legitimate reason to at least send some forces in ad we're sitting silent?"

i was wondering the same thing. it's not even headlining foxnews, cnn, or drudge. i figured there'd be big headlines on drudge like "ACT OF WAR?!?!?!?@!?!"
but i haven't heard anything. i don't watch the news but i read all the news sites. it's not even the number one story on bbc news.
there has to be a reason they're keeping things on the down low. maybe the brits were up to something that could embarrass certain folks if it were exposed.

3/26/2007 12:50:13 PM

it is time for the us and its allies(not the soviet reunion or china) to seriously fuck up iran

its seriously time for this to happen

3/26/2007 3:23:52 PM

iran is the last place we would want to fight...think the mountains of pakistan except worse with basins that turn to complete shit with high annual rainfall. you think it's bad fighting in the desert? iraq doesn't have shit on the difficulties in iran

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 3:31 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2007 3:31:02 PM

it might be the last place we WANT to fight, but its the first place we NEED to fight

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 3:32 PM. Reason : or there will be a islamic republic of iraq, and an islamic republic of iran]

3/26/2007 3:32:00 PM

no. getting into a war with them is the last thing we need. i know you just saw 300, and are all worked up, but starting shit there will make things much worse.

3/26/2007 3:48:06 PM

i have not seen the movie 300...i do not really want to see it because it looks like a poor mans troy

have YOU seen 300? NOT THAT ITS FUCKING RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD

3/26/2007 3:54:30 PM

Quote :

"i was wondering the same thing. it's not even headlining foxnews, cnn, or drudge. i figured there'd be big headlines on drudge like "ACT OF WAR?!?!?!?@!?!" but i haven't heard anything. i don't watch the news but i read all the news sites. it's not even the number one story on bbc news. there has to be a reason they're keeping things on the down low. maybe the brits were up to something that could embarrass certain folks if it were exposed. "

or maybe we're/the brits are doing what we did after 9/11....wait long enough to garner international political support for a military action.

3/26/2007 11:41:23 PM

ya lets go attack some more sovereign nations! GET R DONE FELLERS!!!!



and for the record we would surely LOSE if we tried to invade iran.

3/27/2007 12:30:25 AM

yeah i know i think its gonna get to the point where they might actually provoke us or something

i mean u know how the US is about people provoking them and shit...just look at the iraq debacle

3/27/2007 12:34:17 AM

I seriously doubt that we would invade Iran like we did Iraq.

If anything, we'll throw some bombs on it

3/27/2007 7:42:23 AM

its fucked up what we did in iran in 1953...

3/27/2007 7:44:16 AM

their arrows will blot out the sun

3/27/2007 8:55:36 AM

Quote :

"U.S. Navy Launches Show Of Force Off Coast Of Iran (AP) DUBAI, United Arab Emirates The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran."

3/27/2007 9:31:02 AM

Quote :

"and for the record we would surely LOSE if we tried to invade iran."

Yes, as long as we tolerate defeatist democrats in office. You can't do much in the realm of waging a war if you're constantly second guessed by renegade members of congress. In 1943, this was called treason.

Never again can we win a large scale war because of this.

With the silly concept of "rules of engagement" alone, a war may never be won again by America.

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

3/27/2007 11:08:40 AM

Quote :

"Never again can we win a large scale war because of this."

we won WWII because it was as 'good guys vs. bad guys' as reality will allow.

how are we the good guys here if we're invading another soverign nation that has not attacked us or our allies?

we are in THEIR sphere of influence, trying to run shit, and anyone who points it out is a "defeatist democrat" guilty of "treason"?

nice. no fucking wonder we're in the mess that we are.

3/27/2007 11:16:09 AM

"in their sphere of influence"

what the fuck did we do in Germany? In Italy?

I'm saying that even if we were attacked by China tomorrow, and we waged war, the day after, "the good guys" would enjoy a 6 months of support before others started undermining to try to seize power for themselves.

It's a fact. There is no such thing as loyalty anymore, only how you can capitalize on your chance for more power.

see:
Hillary Clinton c. 2003 "OMG I AM TOTALLY WITH THE PRESIDENT! I VOTE FOR THIS WAR!"
Hillary Clinton 2007 "OMG I TOTALLY WISH I COULD TAKE BACK THAT VOTE WE NEED TO GET OUT OF THIS WAR THAT I HELPED ENABLE!"



[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 11:20 AM. Reason : .]

3/27/2007 11:19:54 AM

we're also losing the media war which is what sways most people's opinion

3/27/2007 11:20:26 AM

...wait, let me guess...lets fabricate some more evidence that says "they" are all the same, and "they" did attack us.

you low IQ neanderthals have been running shit for too long.

religious nuts (in this case Islam) are an inevitable chronic rheumatism that has plagued the civilised world for too long.

we have to create opportunities to give power to the moderates in these places, and put an end to the dark ages once and for all.

3/27/2007 11:23:33 AM

Quote :

"what the fuck did we do in Germany? In Italy?"

they attacked our allies.

3/27/2007 11:25:25 AM

then what do you call shooting down our planes over Iraq? For 10 years?

Quote :

"we have to create opportunities to give power to the moderates in these places"

sounds like you should be supporting what we're doing over there.

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 11:27 AM. Reason : .]

3/27/2007 11:26:41 AM

Quote :

"they attacked our allies."

good thing capturing our allies is ok though...since thats what iran just did?

3/27/2007 11:38:30 AM

actually i dont think we are losing the media war...in my opinion the US making iran look bad is like the best thing it can do to WIN the media war

that 15 soldier thing was just a bonus to hate them more

3/27/2007 11:40:56 AM

Why not let our allies handle the situation themselves until the point where our intercession is necessary to preserve the lives of said allies?

3/27/2007 11:41:41 AM

^ that's worked well historically...


Under that policy, MILLIONS of people died in the late 30s and early 40s.

3/27/2007 11:44:02 AM

^ I'm unfamiliar with the similar scale incident involving a dozen or so of our allied soldiers, wherein our intervention would have prevented the majority of the deaths that occured as a result of Fascist & Nazi powers during World War II.

Please share.

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 11:47 AM. Reason : sp.]

3/27/2007 11:46:47 AM

Quote :

"actually i dont think we are losing the media war...in my opinion the US making iran look bad is like the best thing it can do to WIN the media war that 15 soldier thing was just a bonus to hate them more"

while i agree the 15 soldier thing is a positive for the US in the media war (or more specifically, a negative for Iran)...just a year ago or so the media convinced everyone that US's ally Israel was 10000x worse than Iran for killing civilians when it was Hezbollah who put those civilians in harms way by setting up rockets in their houses, etc

Basically we haven't been winning the media war over the last few years

3/27/2007 11:47:22 AM

idk man i disagree...iran supports hezbollah, so you cant just say it was an israeli thing, and iran captured some british soldiers in 2004, and they just took some now, and they got the whole nuclear issue, and ahmadinejad said israel should be wiped off the map...i dont know what news you watch but i definitely think they portray iran as a bigger threat than israel

the best thing about this is you can really see russia's true colors in this...from the m1 missles, to the nuclear plant they are helping build, and threats of vetos to the resolutions

3/27/2007 11:50:20 AM

you dont have to convince me that Iran is a threat

i just dont know if thats how everyone sees it

3/27/2007 11:54:34 AM

My feeling is that the discussion shouldn't be "Is Iran a threat" so much as:

1) Does Iran pose a possible threat?

2) Is Iran currently threatening us or our allies? Is such threat credible?

3) Is Iran currently acting as at war with us or our allies?

Thus far we have a 1) definite yes. 2) yes / possibly and 3) possibly

The hard-to-prove funding / supplying of insurgents in a seperate ongoing conflict notwithstanding; I think we have a case for sanctions at this point, not a case for all out war.

3/27/2007 12:04:02 PM

Quote :

" Please share."

Your response was completely asinine. Ask a question directly.

Until then, I'll answer.

*in a robotic fashion* Had we intervened in 1938, Hitler never would have seized as much power and territory that he had thus not giving him access to the "ethically impure" nations that he would eventually invade and kill.

3/27/2007 12:12:25 PM

You're comparing intevening against what act that Hitler made in 1938 to the questionable capture of 15 British Sailors by Iran?

Quote :

"Your response was completely asinine. Ask a question directly."

Don't be a dick because you're illiterate. The implied question is obvious, at what point, and what specific incident should we have intervened in 1938 that would have prevented the holocaust and prove that this incident is a reasonable equivalent to the kidnapping that you are making the connection with.

When I said:

Quote :

"Why not let our allies handle the situation themselves until the point where our intercession is necessary to preserve the lives of said allies?"

I was referring specifically to preserving the lives of 15 individuals. So don't make it out to be the equivalent of the killing of hundreds and thousands of our allies on battlefields after invading multiple countries.

3/27/2007 12:23:02 PM

Quote :

"I think we have a case for sanctions at this point"

do you see these sanctions leading iran to halt its enrichment? maybe its just "typical" iranian rhetoric, but they are talking about how the resolution is "torn pieces of paper"...idk if sanctions are going to work, plus u got the china/russia veto threat from hard sanctions

i mean what is the us gonna do when it basically comes down to, either we want harder sanctions which they wont grant or we want to go to war, which russia/china def. dont want us to do either- they are putting us between a rock and a hard place, or however that saying goes

3/27/2007 12:27:09 PM

I'm not comparing the events. You are! My point is that we will never again win a large scale war because the American public and many democratic congressman will not allow it.


We have lost 3,000 American troops since the Iraq War began... I'm not making any one life insignificant, but there were 209,000 allied casualties in the Battle of Normandy alone.

We don't have the stomach for that kind of war anymore and unfortunately, we'll have to fight it one day.

3/27/2007 12:42:00 PM

that's where the giant missles come in

3/27/2007 12:44:41 PM

can't win a war without boots on the ground.

Fact of life.

3/27/2007 12:59:14 PM

well you could...if you were content with completely obliterating everything with a nuke...which pretty much nobody is content with doing

3/27/2007 1:00:48 PM

I'd prefer that method.

3/27/2007 1:02:14 PM

Quote :

"We don't have the stomach for that kind of war anymore and unfortunately, we'll have to fight it one day."

if we were attacked and there was a threat as real as japan/italy/germany then yes, i think we'd be able to stomach that sort of a war.

3/27/2007 1:07:18 PM

Agree or disagree with the war in Iraq, very good things CAN come of it if we persevere and stabilize the government over there. But we can't stomach 3,000 deaths in 4 years.

There are over 40,000 vehicular deaths each year in the US... surely the 3,000 that have paid the price over in Iraq didn't have to die for nothing.


I don't think, even if we are attacked (which we were), that we can stomach any large scale war.

3/27/2007 1:20:06 PM

maybe we wanted to get situated in iraq before we went to iran...so like it would be easier to invade, etc.

3/27/2007 1:23:26 PM

^^we can't stomach it because most of the country doesn't see the benefit. if there were an actual threat to our livelihood, people would be far more likely to "stomach" these deaths.

3/27/2007 1:32:35 PM

so an actual threat to our livlihood (aka many many many people dead) is the only thing that justifies war?

In other words, we have to see the threat before any justification to stop it can occur?

(BTW, similar numbers of people died in 9/11 that died in Pearl Harbor)

3/27/2007 1:34:18 PM

i think i agree with the point ^ is trying to make

i'm all for this iran thing now because its only gonna get worse in the future...the quicker we get some change the safer america is in the long run

3/27/2007 1:36:00 PM

^^what does 9/11 have to do with iraq?

3/27/2007 1:37:06 PM

i know you didnt carrot to me but i was gonna respond with "religion"

3/27/2007 1:38:01 PM

good thing iraq was one of the most secular countries in the region. try again.

3/27/2007 1:38:34 PM

nah just going with muslims in general...we went to iraq to prepare for iran...its gonna be way easier to bomb them if we can get a lot of our shit into the country right next to them

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 1:40 PM. Reason : we are stuck in iraq cause we dont want another islamic republic forming(what iran wants)]

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 1:42 PM. Reason : i think iraq is nothing but a pawn in the bigger picture of going to iran]

3/27/2007 1:39:27 PM

so what does that (dubious) claim have to do with 9/11?

3/27/2007 1:41:18 PM

9/11 gave bush the excuse he needed to "fix"(i use that very loosely, because it hasnt really fixed too much yet) the middle east

i dont mean to sound so hawkish for war and everything but i seriously do think there is gonna come a time where its either we let them do what they want, or we stop them...i just dont see any type of meaningful negotiations take place

3/27/2007 1:43:31 PM

excuse != threat

3/27/2007 1:46:27 PM