do you not view iran as a threat at all or something? i mean ok surely you cant want a regime like that to get nuclear weapons do you?

3/27/2007 1:50:41 PM

I did not say that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, but, by your argument, 9/11 has to happen again before we can do anything or else it is unjust.

I don't see that as a viable option... Another attack is not the only thing that should justify a war. I think prevention should always be the key.

3/27/2007 1:57:59 PM

It just boils down to the preemptive war notion in general.

Everyone has a different idea of what level of provocation gets us to the "it's okay to invade/bomb now" point. Some people think the posturing and threatening that Iran has done to date is more than enough, some people think that the apparent kidnapping of 15 sailors/marines is enough, and some aren't going to be satisfied with war as an option until we (or possibly our allies) are attacked on a large scale (I suppose in the present discussion we're talking about some manner of nuclear device.)

So personally I don't think we need to wait until the U.S. has massive casualties from a nuclear strike to attack. I also don't think we need to wait for approval from some committee of informed nations to strike in the event that such an attack takes place.

I'm not for preemtive war in general, Iran's current government seems to be on the road to waging some level of war against the US and her allies... however, I don't think you can justify the loss of even more of our young men and women's lives until you have either a) hard evidence that the current regime in power in Iran is involved in the killing of US men & women or b) an overt attack on her allies (which thus far, I don't think we have enough information to call this incident such an attack)

3/27/2007 2:05:32 PM

in fact, if a president does indeed wait until a large scale attack is waged against us, he is derelict and should be immediately removed.

Yes, the evidence should be there. Absolutely. In the event that 3 international intelligence agency's, 3 US Administrations, and the CIA say that Iraq has WMDs... that would and should be enough. Waiting any longer is messing with a lot of lives.

3/27/2007 2:08:11 PM

I am making no argument to the contrary.

But I think to date we're not at that level with Iran, yet.

3/27/2007 2:17:21 PM

I don't believe so either... but if bombs fell over Tehran tomorrow, I would have to say that the government knows just a little more than the plebs.

3/27/2007 2:18:36 PM

dont u just wish u knew what iran was thinking right now...like ok we are going to keep ignoring the security council and the problem will just go away?

they seem like the most stubornist people ever

3/27/2007 2:35:05 PM

^ is this guy for real?

3/27/2007 2:35:41 PM

...

3/27/2007 2:42:47 PM

what ever the outcome we don't need to be apart of this man. afganistan and iracq is already enough for us to be involved with. this is brittin's problem not the u.s.

3/27/2007 2:46:13 PM

ah, it's brittins?

thanks for the input but don't come back.

3/27/2007 2:48:09 PM

^^oh man that is one coward type thing to say...britin is like our strongest alley...friends dont turn their backs on their friends

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 2:49 PM. Reason : .]

3/27/2007 2:48:50 PM

the argument is not whether its ours or Britain's problem.

its about what is the case for war.

3/27/2007 2:49:01 PM

we should not be warmongolians. that is the problem with the world now. what ever happened to diplomacy?? it is not about being a coward!! we are not in H.S anymore.

3/27/2007 2:51:58 PM

fuck that...iran isnt the most willing diplomatic partner...

3/27/2007 2:52:36 PM

diplomacy 101: both sides have to be willing.


Try being diplomatic with a terrorist or an insane leader hell bent on nuclear powers.



You end up getting fucked.


see: Clinton and N. Korea

Bill: OK, we'll give you all kinds of fuel if you just stop producing your nukes
Jong Il: OK.
....
Jong Il: SURPRISE BITCHES! I HAVE NUKES!

3/27/2007 2:53:45 PM

what sucks is iran has a lot more leverage than NK

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 2:55 PM. Reason : oil...]

3/27/2007 2:54:45 PM

so your anser is go to war and turn the middle east into one gigantic shitthole?

3/27/2007 2:55:27 PM

wake up call: the middle east is already one gigantic shithole creating terrorist that do things like:

1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)

2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.

2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.

3/27/2007 2:56:33 PM

well technically they have the option of not making it look like a shithole

their first step is accepting a fucking generous ass deal where we give them all the shit, monitor them, provide them with the fuel, etc.

they are fucking stupid not to take that deal

3/27/2007 2:57:00 PM

im not going to read all that

3/27/2007 2:57:23 PM

read just one of the bullet points then.

3/27/2007 2:57:50 PM

trying to reason with unreasonable people doesnt usually resolve anything

Iran's leader, for example

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 2:58 PM. Reason : .]

3/27/2007 2:58:03 PM

^haha thats what the iranians are saying!

3/27/2007 2:58:31 PM

obviously the Ok. City bombing does not apply...


and where is the list of IRA and Basque Separatist bombings?

3/27/2007 3:00:06 PM

Oeuvre you don't know what you talking about. and you have a pessimistic view of reality.

3/27/2007 3:00:53 PM

^^obviously we can go through history and point out that acts of terror have been committed by all different races and backgrounds

and we can realize that the biggest modern day threat happens to be radical muslims


[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 3:01 PM. Reason : ^^]

3/27/2007 3:01:16 PM

^ but i don't know what i'm talking about.

3/27/2007 3:02:25 PM

look i'm just tired of sugar coating shit, u say pessimistic, i say realistic

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 3:06 PM. Reason : i mean these people are just not willing to negotiate under un terms]

3/27/2007 3:05:48 PM

for some reason certain people like to completely ignore what you say if they happen to have their feelings hurt by your tone and how you say it...if you told them the most important thing in the world but you yelled it at them or called them a name, they would ignore you

i know, it makes no sense whatsoever, but thats how it is

3/27/2007 3:06:00 PM

anyone watching cnn?

cafferty's questions is "How should Britain go about trying to win the release of its captured sailors and marines from Iran? "

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 3:10 PM. Reason : trying to segway back to thread title ]

3/27/2007 3:09:21 PM

you want a win-win situation?

send Louis Farrakhan over to negotiate their release.


if Jesse Jackson could do it in Sebia with Milosevic, this could work also.

3/27/2007 3:19:24 PM

send Cat Stevens over there

3/27/2007 3:19:56 PM

ok i finished my answer...i hope they pick it

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 3:38 PM. Reason : can someone dvr it just in case?]

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 3:58 PM. Reason : they picked someones in wilmington but not mine]

3/27/2007 3:34:59 PM

oh shit, here we go











just curious, how many of you think oil is NOT the primary reason we're over there?

3/27/2007 10:16:49 PM

I think only idiots think we are over there for oil

We're actually over there for money

3/27/2007 10:28:06 PM

I hope we are over there(iraq) to fuck up iran

3/28/2007 5:54:23 AM

I think we're their for the long-term strategy of building substantial military installations in the center of the middle east. You might make the argument that we already have forces on other countries' soil... And while that is correct, we don't have anything elsewhere at the scale of what they're hoping / planning to have in Iraq.

Oil is part of the short term game, as well as the long term game, but I don't think you can completely sum up this whole deal by saying "it's war for oil" it's much more than that, it's about long-term control in the 21st century of an area over which the west hasn't had significant control over since the dark ages.

3/28/2007 6:15:11 AM

speaking of iraqi oil...i like how the US was pressuring iraq to pass a oil law in parliment...it basically aims to privatize iraqs oil to companies across the world...from what i read in the news story about it, its basically what every other middle eastern oil producing country has choosen NOT to do

^i agree with your first paragraph 100 percent- we went to iraq to get ready for iran...i mean think about it...we thought we would be viewed as liberators in iraq(at first we were right?), but there is no way in hell we'd be viewed as liberators in iran...so u go to where u might be viewed in a positive light, and then put a large chunk of your military there to prepare for iran

look at the geography starting with israel and going east - israel---->jordan---->iraq----->iran

if we get ahold of iraq it makes bombing iran so much easier for israel too

[Edited on March 28, 2007 at 6:29 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2007 6:20:10 AM

drunknloaded is discussing foreign politics...

dear lord, what is this world coming to?

3/28/2007 8:34:17 AM

i mean i only read like 3 hours of news a day

and then watch like 6 hours of (50 percent cnn, 30 percent fox news, 20 percent msnbc)

3/28/2007 11:22:45 AM

yo they just played the first video of them...came out on iran tv...u see about 7 or 8 of them eatting...the one broad in the group is getting released, and she "wrote" a "confession" note

god i fucking hate how iran makes the people sign a "letter of confession" like THEY are the ones that were right- they have done that at least twice before in the past 5 years...they were 1.7 nautical miles on iraqs side

fucking iran...god i cant wait til we shape u up...

[Edited on March 28, 2007 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2007 11:39:08 AM

For those counting (As if we care about the Geneva Convention anymore...):

Violation #1 : Threatening to try soldiers in uniform for espionage
Violation #2 : Interrogation of same captured soldiers
Violation #3 : Public display of captured soldiers

3/28/2007 12:58:35 PM

let alone all the charges of kidnapping and unlawfully boarding their boat, etc

3/28/2007 1:03:47 PM

^ I intentionally ignored all aspects of the case that are currently up for debate.

[Edited on March 28, 2007 at 1:11 PM. Reason : Despite OUR stance on their status, the water is contested. (per above map)]

3/28/2007 1:06:32 PM

i mean its not like they were in iraqi waters by 1.7 nautical miles or anything...

3/28/2007 1:07:04 PM

The boundary line was established in 1975, broken by Saddam, and has been disputed ever since.

It's the weakest of the charges against them thus far, because of the disputed nature. It doesn't change the fact that the Iranians are wrong, it's a matter of picking your battles. Let me put it like this:

Even if the British marines were in Iranian waters, everything the Iranians did beyond the point of detaining them has been full of violations to the Geneva Convention. Clear enough?

3/28/2007 1:19:26 PM

Geneva Convention doesn't mean jack anymore to anyone.

3/28/2007 1:27:30 PM

^^i feel u on that....but i mean 1.7 miles?...if they had said like 300 feet inside iraqs borders i woulda been like ok i can see how that might cause iran to do something but 1.7 miles?!?...thats a little too far away from the "disputed" border for me...

3/28/2007 1:31:16 PM

Iran says that they were 2 miles within Iranian waters.

Of course GPS evidence supports the British and their 1.7 miles claim.

3/28/2007 1:34:51 PM