Is it time to kick Iran's Ass yet?

[Loyal American]

U.S.: Iran Helped in Deadly Iraq Strike

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/07/02/704641.html

General Points Finger at Iranian Force

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/07/02/704614.html

[wolvernova]

If you are stupid enough to believe it won't escalate into a regional war. I hope when we attack you're happy with the results.

[Loyal American]

If you are stupid enough to believe it won't escalate into a regional war. I hope when we attack you're happy with the results.

Do you read? Do you see what they are doing in Iraq? Aren't we going to do something about it? They are fueling the fire, training, sending deadly supplies in and fighters.........

Oh I get it, they've declared war with us, huh? :rolleyes:

[johnrocks]

70% of America now want out of that war we are in in Iraq, it has done nothing but destabalize that region even more yet there are people that want to go into Iran:wall:

[wolvernova]

Do you read? Do you see what they are doing in Iraq? Aren't we going to do something about it? They are fueling the fire, training, sending deadly supplies in and fighters.........

Oh I get it, they've declared war with us, huh? :rolleyes:

Yes, it's the same thing we did to the Soviets in Afghanistan. I get it, bud. What do you think will happen if we bomb Iran?

[Texas_Pride]

U.S.: Iran Helped in Deadly Iraq Strike

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/07/02/704641.html

General Points Finger at Iranian Force

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/07/02/704614.html

It's a shame that their are hippies in this world. America will not attack Iran because these liberals are afraid. They believe that Iran should nuke us first, then they want to have dialogue after that, to avoid anymore bloodshed. They MAY go to war after all of that, but it's doubtful.

[Loyal American]

Yes, it's the same thing we did to the Soviets in Afghanistan. I get it, bud. What do you think will happen if we bomb Iran?

All hell will break lose but they are putting CF, IA and IP as well as the general Iraqi citizen in danger. Do we close our eyes and pretend they aren't there?

I am not a "bud" and what do you think we should do to clean Iranian influence out of Iraq?

[Article]

Do you read? Do you see what they are doing in Iraq? Aren't we going to do something about it? They are fueling the fire, training, sending deadly supplies in and fighters.........

Oh I get it, they've declared war with us, huh? :rolleyes:

Attacking Iran at this point is a very bad idea.

I also tend to agree with antitheist, who said:

Bush could never get away with it.

[Article]

All hell will break lose but they are putting CF, IA and IP as well as the general Iraqi citizen in danger. Do we close our eyes and pretend they aren't there?

No.

We think pragmatically and decide whether or not the costs will out weight the benefits.

[Loyal American]

It's a shame that their are hippies in this world. America will not attack Iran because these liberals are afraid. They believe that Iran should nuke us first, then they want to have dialogue after that, to avoid anymore bloodshed. They MAY go to war after all of that, but it's doubtful.
Disgusting but I hear ya! :(

[wolvernova]

All hell will break lose but they are putting CF, IA and IP as well as the general Iraqi citizen in danger. Do we close our eyes and pretend they aren't there?

I am not a "bud" and what do you think we should do to clean Iranian influence out of Iraq?

Considering Iraq is Iran's neighbor (and not ours by the way), there's not much that can be done about it. I hope that the Iraqi govt can take charge and pressure Iran to stop it, but I have no false expectations.

If you prefer a large scale gulf war that will kill more of our troops and potentially paralyze our economy over what we have now, I'd question your sanity.

[Loyal American]

No.

We think pragmatically and decide whether or not the costs will out weight the benefits.What the hell are you talking about........cost vs. benefits.

Our troops are getting killed by Iranians! IA, IP and Iraqi citizens are getting killed by the powerful bombs and figthers........and what price do you put on stopping or allowing that to happen?

[bonchie]

Disgusting but I hear ya! :(

At least they gave us some good music.

I enjoy Hendrix.

[Article]

What the hell are you talking about........cost vs. benefits.

Our troops are getting killed by Iranians! IA, IP and Iraqi citizens are getting killed by the powerful bombs and figthers........and what price do you put on stopping or allowing that to happen?

Right now the mission is Iraq and it's stability. It isn't going as well as planned.

Escalate and attack Iran and the US may be biting off more than it can chew.

Cost vs. Benefits

[wolvernova]

What the hell are you talking about........cost vs. benefits.

Our troops are getting killed by Iranians! IA, IP and Iraqi citizens are getting killed by the powerful bombs and figthers........and what price do you put on stopping or allowing that to happen?

The price you're talking about is more dead U.S. soldiers. And dead Iranians, but we don't care about them. What in the world makes you think that Iran will take this sitting down? When Saddam attacked them, they waged a pointless 8-year war. We're at a point where they're ripe for a revolution there, and uneducated idiots in this country want to wage a war that will devastate that region, cripple our economy, and solidify the mullahs' control for the next 40 years. How stupid are you people????

[DarkStarrRingo]

U.S.: Iran Helped in Deadly Iraq Strike

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/07/02/704641.html

General Points Finger at Iranian Force

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/07/02/704614.html

One large NUKE in Tehran, followed by another one every 30 days until these pigs "surrender" and behave.

[Article]

The price you're talking about is more dead U.S. soldiers. And dead Iranians, but we don't care about them. What in the world makes you think that Iran will take this sitting down? When Saddam attacked them, they waged a pointless 8-year war. We're at a point where they're ripe for a revolution there, and uneducated idiots in this country want to wage a war that will devastate that region, cripple our economy, and solidify the mullahs' control for the next 40 years. How stupid are you people????

It seems like LA is thinking with her emotions.

[Loyal American]

The price you're talking about is more dead U.S. soldiers. And dead Iranians, but we don't care about them. What in the world makes you think that Iran will take this sitting down? When Saddam attacked them, they waged a pointless 8-year war. We're at a point where they're ripe for a revolution there, and uneducated idiots in this country want to wage a war that will devastate that region, cripple our economy, and solidify the mullahs' control for the next 40 years. How stupid are you people????I never said Iran would take anything sitting down but they are prolonging our mission in Iraq and as I see it we can't allow them to do that. I don't know what to do but worring about our stable ecomony, which is just fine is accomplishing nothing either except a longer engagement in Iraq!

[Loyal American]

It seems like LA is thinking with her emotions.LOL, I don't think I have any emotions anymore, I just support our troops and their mission and as I see it we have some issues to FIX!

[Article]

I never said Iran would take anything sitting down but they are prolonging our mission in Iraq and as I see it we can't allow them to do that. I don't know what to do but worring about our stable ecomony, which is just fine is accomplishing nothing either except a longer engagement in Iraq!

Pssst.

Iraq needs a political solution.

[Article]

LOL, I don't think I have any emotions anymore, I just support our troops and their mission and as I see it we have some issues to FIX!

I understand your frustration.

[Loyal American]

Right now the mission is Iraq and it's stability. It isn't going as well as planned.

Escalate and attack Iran and the US may be biting off more than it can chew.

Cost vs. BenefitsIt isn't going as well as planned because of AQ and because we aren't addressing what to do about Iran. Yes/NO?

I have been watching the Iran thing daily and I only know that we have to address it and talking doesn't seem to have any effect.........so what do we do?

[wolvernova]

It seems like LA is thinking with her emotions.

Or not at all. I've yet to talk to one person that wants to bomb Iran that knows ANYTHING about that country, let alone its role in that region. The occupation of Iraq circa 2003-6 will seem like a pleasant dream compared to the hell that will be a never-ending war with Iran. Every time a knucklehead salivates over the death with such abandon over warfare I just want to :wall: :wall: :wall:

[Loyal American]

Pssst.

Iraq needs a political solution.
AND I suppose you're serious?
They don't listen, talking doesn't work
Should be try land for peace.....give them Iraq and then we'll have peace.

We all know that work! :rolleyes:

[wolvernova]

It isn't going as well as planned because of AQ and because we aren't addressing what to do about Iran. Yes/NO?

I have been watching the Iran thing daily and I only know that we have to address it and talking doesn't seem to have any effect.........so what do we do?

Except we're hardly talking to them. This administration is undiplomatic at best.

[DarkStarrRingo]

Or not at all. I've yet to talk to one person that wants to bomb Iran that knows ANYTHING about that country, let alone its role in that region. The occupation of Iraq circa 2003-6 will seem like a pleasant dream compared to the hell that will be a never-ending war with Iran. Every time a knucklehead salivates over the death with such abandon over warfare I just want to :wall: :wall: :wall:


I am personally salivating over one well-placed nuke vs. years of IEDs and other atrocities caused by these animals. Who do you think is providing the entertainment in Iraq? The IRANIANS are. Did you just fall off the turnip truck?

[Article]

It isn't going as well as planned because of AQ and because we aren't addressing what to do about Iran. Yes/NO?

Sort of.

Iraq needs to step up their own efforts to take control of their own country, secure their own country, and settle their differences.

AQ and Iran are there to try to throw a wrench in the operation.

I have been watching the Iran thing daily and I only know that we have to address it and talking doesn't seem to have any effect.........so what do we do?

I'd sit down with the Iranians and try to handle it diplomatically.

I tend to get crucified when I suggest that though ...

[Loyal American]

Or not at all. I've yet to talk to one person that wants to bomb Iran that knows ANYTHING about that country, let alone its role in that region. The occupation of Iraq circa 2003-6 will seem like a pleasant dream compared to the hell that will be a never-ending war with Iran. Every time a knucklehead salivates over the death with such abandon over warfare I just want to :wall: :wall: :wall:Lighten up wolvernova, color me any color you like, I really don't mind. I see a serious problem that has to be address if we are to realize success in Iraq. COLOR me a knucklehead, stupid but just writing the problem off because it's a tough one doesn't fly with me.

[wolvernova]

I never said Iran would take anything sitting down but they are prolonging our mission in Iraq and as I see it we can't allow them to do that. I don't know what to do but worring about our stable ecomony, which is just fine is accomplishing nothing either except a longer engagement in Iraq!

Are you suggesting that they'll stop providing munitions to insurgents if we attack them? Are you stupid? They'll up the ante a hundred-fold. Once we drop the bombs, all bets are off and they'll make no attempt to cover their tracks, which means they'll do everything they can to make us feel pain. I hope you're happy with that. I hope you can explain to your grandchildren why it was necessary to keep the mullahs in power for another generation so they could go fight them.

[Loyal American]

Sort of.

Iraq needs to step up their own efforts to take control of their own country, secure their own country, and settle their differences.
They are stepping up, their trying...just read the good news thread and you see they are!

AQ and Iran are there to try to throw a wrench in the operation.
Truth, dead on!



I'd sit down with the Iranians and try to handle it diplomatically.

I tend to get crucified when I suggest that though ...
You get crucified because they have already talk to Iran and tried to get them to keep their fighters and dangerous weapons out of Iraq and it hasn't work, it only has gotten worse.

[ArmyCowboy]

Dropping bombs on Iraq (especially nuclear) will do nothing but strengthen the mullas and unite a divided people behind them.

Right now the mullahs and MA are preaching that America and our allies are planning on invading them, playing on their peoples fears after seeing us invade two of their neighbors.

Bombing Iraq will make prophets of them (just as invading Iraq made a prophet of Bin laden). As I previously stated, this will unite their people and futhermore it will turn thousands of moderate Arabs into Islamists as they understand that America may truly be conducting a War Against Islam.

[Token]

70% of America now want out of that war we are in in Iraq, it has done nothing but destabalize that region even more yet there are people that want to go into Iran:wall:

says CNN

[Article]

They are stepping up, their trying...just read the good news thread and you see they are!

I read -google's posts all the time.

You get crucified because they have already talk to Iran and tried to get them to keep their fighters and dangerous weapons out of Iraq and it hasn't work, it only has gotten worse.


Iran offered a talk WAY back in 2003 when we had enormous leverage over them. The US decided to be arrogant and turned them down.

Since then the US has not engaged in any real serious talks with Iran.

Unless you call a day in Iraq with Condi "serious talks."

[Loyal American]

Are you suggesting that they'll stop providing munitions to insurgents if we attack them? Are you stupid? They'll up the ante a hundred-fold. Once we drop the bombs, all bets are off and they'll make no attempt to cover their tracks, which means they'll do everything they can to make us feel pain. I hope you're happy with that. I hope you can explain to your grandchildren why it was necessary to keep the mullahs in power for another generation so they could go fight them.
I have a grandson, I don't want to explain why we let Iranians kill his mom and dad in Iraq wolvernova.

How do we stop the Iranian influence in Iraq?

[FA_Hayek]

If you are stupid enough to believe it won't escalate into a regional war. I hope when we attack you're happy with the results.

If you are stupid enough to believe that it hasn't been a regional war since 1948, then you have learned nothing from six decades of history in the Middle East.

[Loyal American]

Dropping bombs on Iraq (especially nuclear) will do nothing but strengthen the mullas and unite a divided people behind them.

Right now the mullahs and MA are preaching that America and our allies are planning on invading them, playing on their peoples fears after seeing us invade two of their neighbors.

Bombing Iraq will make prophets of them (just as invading Iraq made a prophet of Bin laden). As I previously stated, this will unite their people and futhermore it will turn thousands of moderate Arabs into Islamists as they understand that America may truly be conducting a War Against Islam.
I don't want to bomb Iraq, I want IRAN out of Iraq.

No, they are piling in Iraq to prolong the war so American's will lose the will to win. That's what they are doing.

[Loyal American]

Iran offered a talk WAY back in 2003 when we had enormous leverage over them. The US decided to be arrogant and turned them down.

Since then the US has not engaged in any real serious talks with Iran.

Unless you call a day in Iraq with Condi "serious talks."

Article give me a good example when TALKING stop Iran or AQ!

[wolvernova]

I have a grandson, I don't want to explain why we let Iranians kill his mom and dad in Iraq wolvernova.

How do we stop the Iranian influence in Iraq?

There is no practical way of stopping them. Iraq and Iran are neighbors, I hate to inform you. Considering the majority of suicide bombers are coming from Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries (btw, have any of the suicide bombers come from Iran??), I don't see how Iran is the biggest problem there. They want us out, for sure, but they're also investing heavily in Iraq. It's a very poorly managed dual-pillar foreign policy, but you can be sure that if we attack Iran any chance of stability in Iraq will be gone. Have fun explaining to your grandchildren how we lost only a few thousand troops in four years and twice that in the fifth year.

[wolvernova]

Article give me a good example when TALKING stop Iran or AQ!

He just referenced a 2003 offer from Iran that was not even explored. If you'd like an additional example of how talking to Iran has benefited us, I suggest you use your computer for research rather than blabbering and look up our joint effort with them in 2001 in Afghanistan.

[Article]

Article give me a good example when TALKING stop Iran or AQ!


I do not advocate talking with AQ but when a state is involved such as Iran, I believe that all diplomatic options need to be exhausted before the US (and it will be the US) attacks.

Edit to add: see wolvernova's post

[FA_Hayek]

I'd sit down with the Iranians and try to handle it diplomatically.

I tend to get crucified when I suggest that though ...

I would be willing to give diplomacy a chance. After they've had a taste of MOAB. We have specific, credible and physical evidence of their involvement. That involvement is illegal.

We should punish them, somewhat severely, first. And then invite them to talk.

[ArmyCowboy]

I don't want to bomb Iraq, I want IRAN out of Iraq.

No, they are piling in Iraq to prolong the war so American's will lose the will to win. That's what they are doing.

I was actually replying to DSR's post:

I am personally salivating over one well-placed nuke vs. years of IEDs and other atrocities caused by these animals. Who do you think is providing the entertainment in Iraq? The IRANIANS are. Did you just fall off the turnip truck?

I might have typed "Iraq", but I meant "Iran." Sorry for both misunderstandings.

[Loyal American]

There is no practical way of stopping them. Iraq and Iran are neighbors, I hate to inform you. Considering the majority of suicide bombers are coming from Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries (btw, have any of the suicide bombers come from Iran??), I don't see how Iran is the biggest problem there. They want us out, for sure, but they're also investing heavily in Iraq. It's a very poorly managed dual-pillar foreign policy, but you can be sure that if we attack Iran any chance of stability in Iraq will be gone. Have fun explaining to your grandchildren how we lost only a few thousand troops in four years and twice that in the fifth year.All talk and no solution type a guy......huh?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'll also have to explain to my grandkids why they have to march off to war.......because mom and dad didn't finish the job......right?

[Article]

I would be willing to give diplomacy a chance. After they've had a taste of MOAB. We have specific, credible and physical evidence of their involvement. That involvement is illegal.

We should punish them, somewhat severely, first. And then invite them to talk.

That could work two ways though.

As has been discussed in this thread and others, attacking Iran could cause rampid nationalism and strengthen their regimes grip on the country.

On the other hand it could regain the waning leverage the US has over Iran and make the US more effective in talks.

[wolvernova]

All talk and no solution type a guy......huh?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'll also have to explain to my grandkids why they have to march off to war.......because mom and dad didn't finish the job......right?

What are you smoking? You either desire a larger and more disruptive war, or are so poorly educated in regards to Iran that you don't know what you're talking about. What's your solution and what do you think will be the result?

[Loyal American]

He just referenced a 2003 offer from Iran that was not even explored. If you'd like an additional example of how talking to Iran has benefited us, I suggest you use your computer for research rather than blabbering and look up our joint effort with them in 2001 in Afghanistan.

I don't have to look it up wolvernova, where has talking to Iran gotten us since 2001?

[Loyal American]

What are you smoking? You either desire a larger and more disruptive war, or are so poorly educated in regards to Iran that you don't know what you're talking about. What's your solution and what do you think will be the result?Damn it, I don't know......I am asking!

What, take out their nuclear sites with aircrews then talk!

[FA_Hayek]

That could work two ways though.

As has been discussed in this thread and others, attacking Iran could cause rampid nationalism and strengthen their regimes grip on the country.

On the other hand it could regain the waning leverage the US has over Iran and make the US more effective in talks.

As has been shown throughout history, especially 20th century history, a policy of appeasement and diplomacy does not work. The sole reason why Iran is rattling sabers and stepping up their efforts in Iraq is because they perceive weakness and waivering in Washington.

[Article]

I don't have to look it up wolvernova, where has talking to Iran gotten us since 2001?

The US decided it wasn't goint to talk to Iran so talks, or lack there of, have barely existed.

[johnrocks]

says CNN

Says the election last November. show me just one poll that shows a majority favors that war and you will hear nothing else from me on the subject.

[wolvernova]

I don't have to look it up wolvernova, where has talking to Iran gotten us since 2001?

I just told you: look up our cooperation in Afghanistan. Since then we've had the policy of "axis of evil" and then an offer including nuke suspension, disarming Hezbollah, cooperation in Iraq, and recognizing Israel. Seeing as how we didn't even explore it, I don't think I need to tell you where not talking has not gotten us.

[wolvernova]

As has been shown throughout history, especially 20th century history, a policy of appeasement and diplomacy does not work. The sole reason why Iran is rattling sabers and stepping up their efforts in Iraq is because they perceive weakness and waivering in Washington.

Yeah Reagan was an idiot, we should have bombed Russia. :wall: :wall:

[Loyal American]

I just told you: look up our cooperation in Afghanistan. Since then we've had the policy of "axis of evil" and then an offer including nuke suspension, disarming Hezbollah, cooperation in Iraq, and recognizing Israel. Seeing as how we didn't even explore it, I don't think I need to tell you where not talking has not gotten us.
TALKING doesn't work.......PERIOD!

Now it's 6:05 PM here and I gotta stop and feed that grandson but I'll be back and read all your words of wisdom later! :rolleyes:

[Article]

As has been shown throughout history, especially 20th century history, a policy of appeasement and diplomacy does not work. The sole reason why Iran is rattling sabers and stepping up their efforts in Iraq is because they perceive weakness and waivering in Washington.

Appeasment and diplomacy are starting to come to fruition in N. Korea.

Military force is not off my table with Iran. This includes a policy that if we make a deal with Iran and they break it, they do so at their own peril.

[johnrocks]

Yeah Reagan was an idiot, we should have bombed Russia. :wall: :wall:

:))

[wolvernova]

Damn it, I don't know......I am asking!

What, take out their nuclear sites with aircrews then talk!

They won't be in talking mode then. They'll be in war mode, and they'll round up the public (that prior to then HATED their govt, though now realize their predictions of an unwarranted attack by the Great Satan were true). There is no easy solution, but bombing them would be disastrous. It will in effect undermine everything we hoped for in that region and LOTS of U.S. troops and sailors will be lost.

[ChrisSpencer]

U.S.: Iran Helped in Deadly Iraq Strike

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/07/02/704641.html

General Points Finger at Iranian Force

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/07/02/704614.html

Short answer: Yes


Long answer: No


Ask me to explain if you care to, I find it trivial to keep repeating myself on these ridiculous Iran topics.

[Article]

TALKING doesn't work.......PERIOD!

Now it's 6:05 PM here and I gotta stop and feed that grandson but I'll be back and read all your words of wisdom later! :rolleyes:

You say you don't know what to do to.

That you are looking for answers.

You get some answers to what you admittedly "didn't know."

Then you scorn the answers given as if you somehow know better.

The irony ...

[wolvernova]

Short answer: Yes


Long answer: No


Ask me to explain if you care to, I find it trivial to keep repeating myself on these ridiculous Iran topics.

Chris, are you with the "bomb Iran" crowd, or not? I haven't read your previous posts.

[wolvernova]

You say you don't know what to do to.

That you are looking for answers.

You get some answers to what you admittedly "didn't know."

Then you scorn the answers given as if you somehow know better.

The irony ...

Some people cannot accept the notion that there are problems in geopolitics without a simple solution. Israel and the Palestinians (though some ppl in these forums deny the existence of Palestine, amusingly). The U.S. and the Soviets during the cold war (unfortunately the dirty hippies won that debate and we didn't achieve the glorious scorched earth results the war hawks wanted). Taiwan. Iran, the mother of all complexities and contradictions. Unfortunately we live in a very privileged society that fosters ignorance, the result of such is the feverish desire for bombing a country that one knows zippo about.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ixG55tWAebg

[ChrisSpencer]

Chris, are you with the "bomb Iran" crowd, or not? I haven't read your previous posts.

I don't like the idea of bombing Iran for the following reasons: 1. Iran has a Baseeji Force that can, and will, spill over into Iraq and Afghanistan if we are to engage in any overt military action against the Islamic Republic. This force of volunteer and military personnel can make our situations in those two fronts VERY unappealing, to the point where we may have to witness even further surges just to prevent a total loss.

2. Iran has significant influence over the oil market, I'm not as concerned with this aspect as I am with the aforementioned one but I do believe that an attack on Iran will compel Iranian oil to be diverted from European and U.S. markets, AND a Venezuelan motion to follow suit.

3. And finally, we simply do not have the personnel to engage Iran. It would require hundreds of thousands of additional soldiers to occupy Iran. If we didn't occupy Iran then it would take thousands, perhaps tens of thousands or even more to reinforce Afghanistan and Iraq against the inevitable surges over the border. I believe that the present Iranian meddling in Iraqi attacks are being done as a show of what Iran can do if we do attack them.


With all of this being said it is obvious that a response is necessary against Iran. What response that should be, I don't quite know. Whether it's a surgical strike on the Iranian government (this could result in the previous harms occuring anyway) or more serious economic sanctions, I don't know. I'm not a fan of the economic sanctions becuase, frankly, we tried sanctioning Cuba and look where that's gotten us. Perhaps the only solution is to bite the bullet and prepare for deploying 200,000 more American soldiers to the middle east - or to withdraw our forces entirely from Iraq and Afghanistan. I haven't seen any good options yet for dealing with Iran, it's a very difficult situation.

[FA_Hayek]

Yeah Reagan was an idiot, we should have bombed Russia. :wall: :wall:

As the old saying goes: Communism didn't fall. It was Bushed.

[wolvernova]

I don't like the idea of bombing Iran for the following reasons: 1. Iran has a Baseeji Force that can, and will, spill over into Iraq and Afghanistan if we are to engage in any overt military action against the Islamic Republic. This force of volunteer and military personnel can make our situations in those two fronts VERY unappealing, to the point where we may have to witness even further surges just to prevent a total loss.

2. Iran has significant influence over the oil market, I'm not as concerned with this aspect as I am with the aforementioned one but I do believe that an attack on Iran will compel Iranian oil to be diverted from European and U.S. markets, AND a Venezuelan motion to follow suit.

3. And finally, we simply do not have the personnel to engage Iran. It would require hundreds of thousands of additional soldiers to occupy Iran. If we didn't occupy Iran then it would take thousands, perhaps tens of thousands or even more to reinforce Afghanistan and Iraq against the inevitable surges over the border. I believe that the present Iranian meddling in Iraqi attacks are being done as a show of what Iran can do if we do attack them.


With all of this being said it is obvious that a response is necessary against Iran. What response that should be, I don't quite know. Whether it's a surgical strike on the Iranian government (this could result in the previous harms occuring anyway) or more serious economic sanctions, I don't know. I'm not a fan of the economic sanctions becuase, frankly, we tried sanctioning Cuba and look where that's gotten us. Perhaps the only solution is to bite the bullet and prepare for deploying 200,000 more American soldiers to the middle east - or to withdraw our forces entirely from Iraq and Afghanistan. I haven't seen any good options yet for dealing with Iran, it's a very difficult situation.

Okay, you're one of the few in these threads that actually knows something about Iran and that region. My thoughts, in addition to what you said:

-We'd need way more than 200k troops if we wanted to occupy Iran, and that will never happen.
-I don't know that we need to "respond" to their involvement more than we are already. If we overstep into their grounds, it could start a war. That's the last thing we need. However it would be nice if we could terminate all traffickers of munitions from Iran, but we don't have the force levels needed to secure the Iraqi border.
-You're right, there are no good options in dealing with them. Zero. People that say talking to them won't achieve anything are ignorant though; we've had some serious blunders in our foreign policy lately.
-If we go to war with them, as you have noted, Iraq and Afghanistan will become war zones for our troops well beyond what they are now. I also worry that Iran will retaliate against our allies in the gulf, responses will be sent back to Iran, and a neverending gulf war will ensue. Just imagine what the results of that will be.

Good to dialog with someone that's at least partially educated on the topic. There's a serious lack of informed commentators in these threads.

[FA_Hayek]

Some people cannot accept the notion that there are problems in geopolitics without a simple solution. Israel and the Palestinians (though some ppl in these forums deny the existence of Palestine, amusingly).

Palestine is a place on maps from old Encyclopedias. There was a Palestine once, but their is no such animal as a Palestinian. They are as fictional as orcs. Israel, when allowed to defend herself without western constraints, has a history of cleaning her antagonists' clocks. Seems simple enough to me.

The U.S. and the Soviets during the cold war (unfortunately the dirty hippies won that debate and we didn't achieve the glorious scorched earth results the war hawks wanted).

"Mr. President, the Soviet Union has the capacity to feed its people or keep up with the United States in an escalation of armament. But they cannot do both." Simple enough to me.

Taiwan. Iran, the mother of all complexities and contradictions. Unfortunately we live in a very privileged society that fosters ignorance, the result of such is the feverish desire for bombing a country that one knows zippo about.

A lack of familiarity with Occam's Razor tends to make people complicate things. You are complicating things that need not be so complicated. He who negotiates from a position of strength tends to find an advantage in negotiations.

Rain Hell on Iran, then invite them to talk with us. If they refuse, Rain Hell again, and invite again. Even those barbarians will get the message sooner or later.

[Loyal American]

I don't like the idea of bombing Iran for the following reasons: 1. Iran has a Baseeji Force that can, and will, spill over into Iraq and Afghanistan if we are to engage in any overt military action against the Islamic Republic. This force of volunteer and military personnel can make our situations in those two fronts VERY unappealing, to the point where we may have to witness even further surges just to prevent a total loss.

2. Iran has significant influence over the oil market, I'm not as concerned with this aspect as I am with the aforementioned one but I do believe that an attack on Iran will compel Iranian oil to be diverted from European and U.S. markets, AND a Venezuelan motion to follow suit.

3. And finally, we simply do not have the personnel to engage Iran. It would require hundreds of thousands of additional soldiers to occupy Iran. If we didn't occupy Iran then it would take thousands, perhaps tens of thousands or even more to reinforce Afghanistan and Iraq against the inevitable surges over the border. I believe that the present Iranian meddling in Iraqi attacks are being done as a show of what Iran can do if we do attack them.
AND Iran knows all of the above and that's why they don't have to listen to us in talks, correct????

With all of this being said it is obvious that a response is necessary against Iran. What response that should be, I don't quite know. Whether it's a surgical strike on the Iranian government (this could result in the previous harms occuring anyway) or more serious economic sanctions, I don't know. I'm not a fan of the economic sanctions becuase, frankly, we tried sanctioning Cuba and look where that's gotten us. Perhaps the only solution is to bite the bullet and prepare for deploying 200,000 more American soldiers to the middle east - or to withdraw our forces entirely from Iraq and Afghanistan. I haven't seen any good options yet for dealing with Iran, it's a very difficult situation.Yeah, all this has been on my mind and I quess that's why I am asking .... what do we do?
Thanks for the detailed answer Chris.

[kenpoman]

.........

Oh I get it, they've declared war with us, huh? :rolleyes:

actually, yes.
death to america is part of theocratic Iran's charter.

[Loyal American]

You say you don't know what to do to.

That you are looking for answers.

You get some answers to what you admittedly "didn't know."

Then you scorn the answers given as if you somehow know better.

The irony ...Sorry if I don't think "talking" will work.

[kenpoman]

All hell will break lose but they are putting CF, IA and IP as well as the general Iraqi citizen in danger. Do we close our eyes and pretend they aren't there?

I am not a "bud" and what do you think we should do to clean Iranian influence out of Iraq?

we kill them where we find them in Iraq.
we us SF to find where they are bringing in supplies to Iraq and kill them there.
if there are close staging points inside the border we go there, kill them, and come back. quietly.
we hold this up to "the world" - not that it matters - as further proof of Iran's active support of global terrorism. we make a point of getting this info into Iran proper, where the average Irani is sick of the mullahs.

in short, we kill them where ever we find them outside Iran and do what we can help bring Iran's internal problems to a boil.

[Loyal American]

we kill them where we find them in Iraq.
we us SF to find where they are bringing in supplies to Iraq and kill them there.
if there are close staging points inside the border we go there, kill them, and come back. quietly.
we hold this up to "the world" - not that it matters - as further proof of Iran's active support of global terrorism. we make a point of getting this info into Iran proper, where the average Irani is sick of the mullahs.

in short, we kill them where ever we find them outside Iran and do what we can help bring Iran's internal problems to a boil.

Best answer, under really sticky circumstances Kempo. AND I do believe the above is being accomplished but if Iran does some sort of BIG STEP UP I am concerned that we won't be able to handle it.

[wolvernova]

Palestine is a place on maps from old Encyclopedias. There was a Palestine once, but their is no such animal as a Palestinian. They are as fictional as orcs. Israel, when allowed to defend herself without western constraints, has a history of cleaning her antagonists' clocks. Seems simple enough to me.



"Mr. President, the Soviet Union has the capacity to feed its people or keep up with the United States in an escalation of armament. But they cannot do both." Simple enough to me.



A lack of familiarity with Occam's Razor tends to make people complicate things. You are complicating things that need not be so complicated. He who negotiates from a position of strength tends to find an advantage in negotiations.

Rain Hell on Iran, then invite them to talk with us. If they refuse, Rain Hell again, and invite again. Even those barbarians will get the message sooner or later.

Again, I hope you're happy with the results. Say goodbye to any hope of ME stability and say hello to thousands more dead U.S. servicemen and inflation caused by $8/gal fuel.

What am I complicating? It's a complex problem that bombs will not solve, only worsen. I feel like an outcast here in saying that I want the Mullahs out of the government in Iran, and I'm sure that despite tenacious lack of thinking amongst this thread anyone here would argue that will be achieved through force. Quite the opposite in fact.

[kenpoman]

Iran has always meddled in Iraqi affairs, back long before the current nations existed. this will not change in anyone's lifetime, much less this century.

what is suprising is how much support Iran has been getting from Iraqis.

[wolvernova]

we kill them where we find them in Iraq.
we us SF to find where they are bringing in supplies to Iraq and kill them there.
if there are close staging points inside the border we go there, kill them, and come back. quietly.
we hold this up to "the world" - not that it matters - as further proof of Iran's active support of global terrorism. we make a point of getting this info into Iran proper, where the average Irani is sick of the mullahs.

in short, we kill them where ever we find them outside Iran and do what we can help bring Iran's internal problems to a boil.

Right on. So long as we openly act against them outside of their borders, it will probably help our situation. With what's going on in Iran right now, I'm hopeful that a positive change can occur. I'll lose that hope if we launch a preemptive war.

[wolvernova]

I hate the Iranian goverment. In fact, I hate them so much, i really dont have a problem nuking the whole country. I really dont. So please spare me the people will die, i know there are elements of their society that have come a long way. You know what? If they have advanced themsleves that much, they would leave that rathole. Please, Hilary, bomb them to smitherenes when we get you in. Syria? not so much. Cry Cry Syria killed some lebanese wannabee dictator. Like a give a flying rats hole.

Actually a lot of them do leave the country. Something like 20% of college graduates get out of there as soon as they can. Many do it for economic reasons, but the Iranian public hates the Islamic rule of law (and Islam as well). You're nuking position is sick and twisted though. :rolleyes:

[kenpoman]

Best answer, under really sticky circumstances Kempo. AND I do believe the above is being accomplished but if Iran does some sort of BIG STEP UP I am concerned that we won't be able to handle it.

I agree. if we ever have to put boots on the ground its gonna take bunches and bunches of them. something on the order of the original plan to invade Japan in the 40s.

unless the culture has changed lots and lots since I lived there, it would almost certainly be a very, very bloody affair. Iranis are among the most nationalist people in the world. we've got lots of proof of their fanatism.

and while I doubt it falls under COIN guidelines, we'd almost have to do big time nation building. again, like we did in Japan. otherwise we'd be asking for big time retaliation later.

[Loyal American]

Iran has always meddled in Iraqi affairs, back long before the current nations existed. this will not change in anyone's lifetime, much less this century.

what is suprising is how much support Iran has been getting from Iraqis.I know that AQ is killing iraqi shia and sunni who refuse to join in their fight against CF, IA and IP so what makes you think it's not the same situation? I mean yes, there are Iraqis who partake willingly in the fight against us and the Iraqi govt. but I think the numbers are decreasing from what I have read. So is Iraq cooperating with Iran other than those who join in their ground operations?

[kenpoman]

Right on. So long as we openly act against them outside of their borders, it will probably help our situation. With what's going on in Iran right now, I'm hopeful that a positive change can occur. I'll lose that hope if we launch a preemptive war.

considering Iran has been at war with us since '79, it would hardly be preemptive.

I have very little hope for a postive change. IMO, today, war is inevitable.
I hope not, I just don't see anything preventing it.

maybe if Iran has some version of a (can't believe I'm saying this) Boris Yeltsin - someone with clout who has the stones and support to defy the ruling mullahs for national self interest, maybe.

[kenpoman]

I know that AQ is killing iraqi shia and sunni who refuse to join in their fight against CF, IA and IP so what makes you think it's not the same situation? I mean yes, there are Iraqis who partake willingly in the fight against us and the Iraqi govt. but I think the numbers are decreasing from what I have read. So is Iraq cooperating with Iran other than those who join in their ground operations?

it seems so. the recent talks between the two are highly discouraging.

[wolvernova]

I agree. if we ever have to put boots on the ground its gonna take bunches and bunches of them. something on the order of the original plan to invade Japan in the 40s.

unless the culture has changed lots and lots since I lived there, it would almost certainly be a very, very bloody affair. Iranis are among the most nationalist people in the world. we've got lots of proof of their fanatism.

and while I doubt it falls under COIN guidelines, we'd almost have to do big time nation building. again, like we did in Japan. otherwise we'd be asking for big time retaliation later.

It's impossible to contemplate how we could accomplish that. At least in Japan they formally surrendered. The invasion of Iran is an impossibility, at least in practical terms. One has to look no further than Iraq to understand how difficult Iran would be. The only option militarily is bombing them, and it's the worst and most discussed option to date.

[kenpoman]

I hate the Iranian goverment. In fact, I hate them so much, i really dont have a problem nuking the whole country. I really dont. So please spare me the people will die, i know there are elements of their society that have come a long way. You know what? If they have advanced themsleves that much, they would leave that rathole. Please, Hilary, bomb them to smitherenes when we get you in. Syria? not so much. Cry Cry Syria killed some lebanese wannabee dictator. Like I give a flying rats hole.

we'll remind you of this when Iran retaliates with a nuke on US soil.
they can, and will.

try looking at a topograhically correct map.

[FA_Hayek]

Again, I hope you're happy with the results. Say goodbye to any hope of ME stability and say hello to thousands more dead U.S. servicemen and inflation caused by $8/gal fuel.

There has been no stability in the middle east since the end of the first world war. I am not suggesting all out war or conquest. I am suggesting a tactical strike to communicate with Iran in a way that is crystal clear.

They need to be made to understand that this country is the one that liberated Iraq from Saddam, and this country will guide the development of the new Iraqi government. They can participate if they wish, but on our terms.

They must also be made to understand that we will use force to prevent their meddling in Iraqi affairs, and their people will suffer the consequences of the government's failure to heed our warnings. Neighbor or not, if they wanted Iraq to look like their country, they could have done the dirty work of regime change. They didn't. We did. Our rules. Not theirs.

Simple, no?

[wolvernova]

considering Iran has been at war with us since '79, it would hardly be preemptive.

I have very little hope for a postive change. IMO, today, war is inevitable.
I hope not, I just don't see anything preventing it.

maybe if Iran has some version of a (can't believe I'm saying this) Boris Yeltsin - someone with clout who has the stones and support to defy the ruling mullahs for national self interest, maybe.

Or a revolution. Or reform. Iranians would tell you that's happening as we speak. I don't know what proponents of bombing think would be the outcome, but I know it would be a disaster.

[kenpoman]

It's impossible to contemplate how we could accomplish that. At least in Japan they formally surrendered. The invasion of Iran is an impossibility, at least in practical terms. One has to look no further than Iraq to understand how difficult Iran would be. The only option militarily is bombing them, and it's the worst and most discussed option to date.

its not impossible, it just requires two things. planning and will.
note there is no comment it would be easy.

a full scale war with Iran would have to be fought as a full scale war.
again, WW2 Japan.

I keep using Japan as a reference point as there are many cultural similiarities.

[wolvernova]

There has been no stability in the middle east since the end of the first world war. I am not suggesting all out war or conquest. I am suggesting a tactical strike to communicate with Iran in a way that is crystal clear.

They need to be made to understand that this country is the one that liberated Iraq from Saddam, and this country will guide the development of the new Iraqi government. They can participate if they wish, but on our terms.

They must also be made to understand that we will use force to prevent their meddling in Iraqi affairs, and their people will suffer the consequences of the government's failure to heed our warnings. Neighbor or not, if they wanted Iraq to look like their country, they could have done the dirty work of regime change. They didn't. We did. Our rules. Not theirs.

Simple, no?

In a simple-minded way, yes it is.

I was referring to the hope of stability, and am not disillusioned to think it was there to begin with. If the mission in Iraq is as critical as Bush says it is, I can't help but think a regional war in the Gulf will hurt the possibility of stability.

I don't think they need to be made to think anything. They're the grey-haired remnants of a revolution that the new generation wants no part of. They're self-determined and will be replaced by a pro-western generation.

Again, how will using force deter them from meddling? Iraq is their neighbor, not ours. If we attack them, they'll be in silent celebration of the new public support they'll have, and will gladly up the ante on us. It's their hallmark.

[kenpoman]

Or a revolution. Or reform. Iranians would tell you that's happening as we speak. I don't know what proponents of bombing think would be the outcome, but I know it would be a disaster.

a revolution needs a leader.
I don't see any canidates in Iran at present.

at this moment (could change tomorrow) I would only support
one of two kinds of military moves against Iran proper.

1) surgical, to totally remove a specific target
2) complete and total war with the intent of long term ownership

nothing else. trying to straddle the middle will only get folks killed.

[wolvernova]

its not impossible, it just requires two things. planning and will.
note there is no comment it would be easy.

a full scale war with Iran would have to be fought as a full scale war.
again, WW2 Japan.

I keep using Japan as a reference point as there are many cultural similiarities.

Right, it would require will and that will doesn't exist. It's really far-fetched. Japan is an interesting comparison. I don't know what the public support of the Japanese regime was at the time, but it sounds like they passively accepted occupation. I just can't imagine Iranians acting the same way. You're right about the cultural similarities though, except that Iranians are educated and westernized. No real point with that comment, but I'm curious to whether that would trump their fierce nationalism.

[wolvernova]

a revolution needs a leader.
I don't see any canidates in Iran at present.

at this moment (could change tomorrow) I would only support
one of two kinds of military moves against Iran proper.

1) surgical, to totally remove a specific target
2) complete and total war with the intent of long term ownership

nothing else. trying to straddle the middle will only get folks killed.

I agree, but no war with Iran will get less folks killed. You're right that they don't have much of an organized revolution or real leader. Their paranoid govt is very good at rooting them out. But so was the Shah, and we know where that got him. Many elements that existed just prior to the revolution are present today, it would just evolve in one of two ways to change the situation:
1) Immediate revolt by the public (as seen last week in the riots) might erupt into violence and even more oppressive security, and potentially a removal of the Mullahs from state affairs. Obviously Ahmadinejad would have to go too, and I don't know what would happen to the IRGC.
2) The longer route, which would be the eventual control the new generations would inherit. Until they are attacked, we'll see far fewer Ahmadinejads in the following years. Iran is a natural ally to the U.S., and could become a great friend.

[FA_Hayek]

Right, it would require will and that will doesn't exist. It's really far-fetched. Japan is an interesting comparison. I don't know what the public support of the Japanese regime was at the time, but it sounds like they passively accepted occupation. I just can't imagine Iranians acting the same way. You're right about the cultural similarities though, except that Iranians are educated and westernized. No real point with that comment, but I'm curious to whether that would trump their fierce nationalism.

The cultural similarities are in regards to how the Japanese Bushido and radical Islamists view western society. Both consider the west to be inferior and morally bankrupt, and both are (or were, in Japan's case) willing to engage in unspeakable atrocities against such savages.

The Japanese people accepted Allied occupation because the Allies spared Hirohito and convinced him to convince the people to submit. The German occupation didn't go so well--the Allies were still fighting pockets of suicidal German insurgents in the early 1960's.

I'm for Kenpoman's Option #1, and it would go something like this:

1. Iran is publicly warned to stop supporting insurgents in Iraq, or face military consequences.

2. Upon discovery of Iranian fingerprints at the next crime scene, make a surgical strike aimed at obliterating a specific, high value target.

3. Follow on with a communique explaining that the strike is retaliation for the deaths of Iraqis and Americans caused by Iranian meddling in Iraqi affairs. This should include a promise of future strikes if the U.S. or Iraqi officials discover any more "fingerprints" at crime scenes after the strike.

4. Invite Iran to talk.

5. Make good on all promises, and make sure the next target is of higher value than the first one. If a second strike is called for, go back to step 2. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

[wolvernova]

The cultural similarities are in regards to how the Japanese and radical Islamists view western society. Both consider the west to be inferior and morally bankrupt, and both are willing to engage in unspeakable atrocities against such savages.

The Japanese people accepted Allied occupation because the Allies spared Hirohito and convinced him to convince the people to submit. The German occupation didn't go so well--the Allies were still fighting pockets of suicidal German insurgents in the early 1960's.

I'm for Kenpoman's Option #1, and it would go something like this:

1. Iran is publicly warned to stop supporting insurgents in Iraq, or face military consequences.

2. Upon discovery of Iranian fingerprints at the next crime scene, make a surgical strike aimed at obliterating a specific, high value target.

3. Follow on with a communique explaining that the strike is retaliation for the deaths of Iraqis and Americans caused by Iranian meddling in Iraqi affairs. This should include a promise of future strikes if the U.S. or Iraqi officials discover any more "fingerprints" at crime scenes after the strike.

4. Invite Iran to talk.

5. Make good on all promises, and make sure the next target is of higher value than the first one. If a second strike is called for, go back to step 2. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

But what if:

3. Iran retaliates on U.S. forces in the Gulf and Iraq. U.S. responds by a more punishing assault in Iran.
4. Iran retaliates against our allies, namely Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, lighting up their oil fields.
5. SA responds to Iran accordingly, and no oil leaves the gulf for the next 5 years.

Thousands more dead troops and a devastated U.S. economy isn't a bright future for us.

Back to the Japan/Iran comparison, it's a little different I think. Iran's govt is fiercely anti-US, but the public is greatly prowestern. No real point to that, just an observation.

[msny]

Are you suggesting that they'll stop providing munitions to insurgents if we attack them? Are you stupid? They'll up the ante a hundred-fold. Once we drop the bombs, all bets are off and they'll make no attempt to cover their tracks, which means they'll do everything they can to make us feel pain. I hope you're happy with that. I hope you can explain to your grandchildren why it was necessary to keep the mullahs in power for another generation so they could go fight them.

We should have treated Hitler the same way you want to treat this nut in Iran.

Instead of English you would insist that imigrants be taught German! :))

[msny]

Actually a lot of them do leave the country. Something like 20% of college graduates get out of there as soon as they can. Many do it for economic reasons, but the Iranian public hates the Islamic rule of law (and Islam as well). You're nuking position is sick and twisted though. :rolleyes:

Sure, couple of years ago my sister boarded a couple of them going to local university. Come to find out when they returned to Iran, the first thing they did was write articles on how the "great Satan" was a decadent society.

Nevermind they came here as guests and were treated respectfully. They leached our knowledge then spit us out. Mom and dad had lots of money and showed it with there "decadent" purchases.

I would not be sorry to see them all go away, the method is unimportant.

[wolvernova]

We should have treated Hitler the same way you want to treat this nut in Iran.

Instead of English you would insist that imigrants be taught German! :))

You're going to taunt me about how I wouldn't be speaking English, but in the same sentence misspelled "immigrants". You must be a person of no shame or self-awareness.

Having said that, I do not like Ahmadinejad (assuming that's who you're talking about), but bombing them is unbelievably stupid to anyone that knows anything about that region or country. I assume you're part of the other crowd, so keep your baseless opinions to yourself.

[wolvernova]

Sure, couple of years ago my sister boarded a couple of them going to local university. Come to find out when they returned to Iran, the first thing they did was write articles on how the "great Satan" was a decadent society.

Nevermind they came here as guests and were treated respectfully. They leached our knowledge then spit us out. Mom and dad had lots of money and showed it with there "decadent" purchases.

I would not be sorry to see them all go away, the method is unimportant.

That's interesting, I would like to know more if you'd be inclined to share. Were they connected to the govt, or possibly forced to write this? Do you have an English version of any of the articles?

Iranians in the U.S. more than any other ethnicity or origin have the highest graduation percentages (undergrad and grad) and many of our best doctors and engineers are from there. All the ones that I've met from there, including recently immigrated, are about as Americanized as we could hope for from an immigrant (and certainly more so than the Mexicans).

[FA_Hayek]

But what if:

3. Iran retaliates on U.S. forces in the Gulf and Iraq. U.S. responds by a more punishing assault in Iran.
4. Iran retaliates against our allies, namely Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, lighting up their oil fields.
5. SA responds to Iran accordingly, and no oil leaves the gulf for the next 5 years.

Thousands more dead troops and a devastated U.S. economy isn't a bright future for us.

Iran, economically, is in no condition whatsoever to enter a protracted armed conflict with the United States. They know it and so do we. Iran has much more to lose than we do. They may bluster, and they may try to retaliate, but once Iran understands that we are willing to use force of arms against them, they will talk.

If they perceive us as weak or waivering, they will keep doing what they're doing.

[msny]

The cultural similarities are in regards to how the Japanese Bushido and radical Islamists view western society. Both consider the west to be inferior and morally bankrupt, and both are (or were, in Japan's case) willing to engage in unspeakable atrocities against such savages.

The Japanese people accepted Allied occupation because the Allies spared Hirohito and convinced him to convince the people to submit. The German occupation didn't go so well--the Allies were still fighting pockets of suicidal German insurgents in the early 1960's.

I'm for Kenpoman's Option #1, and it would go something like this:

1. Iran is publicly warned to stop supporting insurgents in Iraq, or face military consequences.

2. Upon discovery of Iranian fingerprints at the next crime scene, make a surgical strike aimed at obliterating a specific, high value target.

3. Follow on with a communique explaining that the strike is retaliation for the deaths of Iraqis and Americans caused by Iranian meddling in Iraqi affairs. This should include a promise of future strikes if the U.S. or Iraqi officials discover any more "fingerprints" at crime scenes after the strike.

4. Invite Iran to talk.

5. Make good on all promises, and make sure the next target is of higher value than the first one. If a second strike is called for, go back to step 2. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.


That is a piece meal approach which did not work to well in Vietnam.
I don't think a rotating carrot n' stick approach works here. When and if
we start dropping bombs we continue until they want to talk seriously.

[GileadKnight]

"There's no difference between bombing one site and bombing 1,000 sites, politically," said Andrew Teekell, a security analyst at Stratfor, a private intelligence consultant.

I think we better get busy. Nothing like them inviting us to end their nuclear program.

[wolvernova]

Iran, economically, is in no condition whatsoever to enter a protracted armed conflict with the United States. They know it and so do we. Iran has much more to lose than we do. They may bluster, and they may try to retaliate, but once Iran understands that we are willing to use force of arms against them, they will talk.

If they perceive us as weak or waivering, they will keep doing what they're doing.

I really hope you're right, but keep in mind that they waged an 8 year war with Saddam with a bad economic situation and no organized military. It took five years of Saddam offering peace talks before Iran stopped. Whether they're in a condition to fight or not, don't discount the possibility if we start with them.

[FA_Hayek]

I really hope you're right, but keep in mind that they waged an 8 year war with Saddam with a bad economic situation and no organized military. It took five years of Saddam offering peace talks before Iran stopped. Whether they're in a condition to fight or not, don't discount the possibility if we start with them.

They are not capable of waging an 8-month struggle against the U.S., much less an 8-year long one. Besides, Iraq was their next door neighbor. We are a global power.

They would have no hope of defeating us militarily and at the end of any conflict, it would be Iran who suffered the most. We might suffer a short term economic slump, but their losses would be much, much greater.

This is like the chicken and the pig discussing what the farmer should have for breakfast. The chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. Iran would be committed...

[wolvernova]

They are not capable of waging an 8-month struggle against the U.S., much less an 8-year long one. Besides, Iraq was their next door neighbor. We are a global power.

They would have no hope of defeating us militarily and at the end of any conflict, it would be Iran who suffered the most. We might suffer a short term economic slump, but their losses would be much, much greater.

This is like the chicken and the pig discussing what the farmer should have for breakfast. The chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. Iran would be committed...

LOL I like the analogy. That doesn't mean they won't though. And more U.S. soldiers will die. Is that worth it if nothing is achieved? These people will not back down. And I don't want us to push any nationalistic internal movement that keeps the Mullahs in power. We can deal with this now, but if in 40 years they're still in control, we'll be looking back and wishing we never attacked.

[cmac2012]

Do you read? Do you see what they are doing in Iraq? Aren't we going to do something about it? They are fueling the fire, training, sending deadly supplies in and fighters.........

Oh I get it, they've declared war with us, huh? :rolleyes:
A big part of why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq unilaterally. Iran shares a long border with Iraq -- they have long standing animosity towards us. Did anyone believe that they wouldn't get involved on some level? Would we just stand by meekly if a long standing enemy invaded and occupied Mexico?

I don't like the fools but to expect people to act contrary to their nature is not prudent.

I'm with Zbigniew Brzezinski on this one. We invade Iran, we'll be involved in a serious quagmire stretching across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and likely Pakistan for 20 to 30 years and we'll see our end as a global superpower.

[cmac2012]

We should have treated Hitler the same way you want to treat this nut in Iran.

Instead of English you would insist that imigrants be taught German!

Vast oversimplification.

[msny]

You're going to taunt me about how I wouldn't be speaking English, but in the same sentence misspelled "immigrants". You must be a person of no shame or self-awareness.

Having said that, I do not like Ahmadinejad (assuming that's who you're talking about), but bombing them is unbelievably stupid to anyone that knows anything about that region or country. I assume you're part of the other crowd, so keep your baseless opinions to yourself.

Thanks for the kind and thoughfull remarks.
So berating me makes your point stronger and better does it?

Keep your personal attacks to yourself and stick to the discussion at hand.
I would not make this personal...don't go there son...

By other crowd if you mean am I a loyal American, yes I am

[msny]

That's interesting, I would like to know more if you'd be inclined to share. Were they connected to the govt, or possibly forced to write this? Do you have an English version of any of the articles?

Iranians in the U.S. more than any other ethnicity or origin have the highest graduation percentages (undergrad and grad) and many of our best doctors and engineers are from there. All the ones that I've met from there, including recently immigrated, are about as Americanized as we could hope for from an immigrant (and certainly more so than the Mexicans).

Can't share, you told me not to because my opinions were baseless even though this is a factual
event.

[wolvernova]

Can't share, you told me not to because my opinions were baseless even though this is a factual
event.

Just baseless opinions, not a real story or fact to share. :P

[msny]

Vast oversimplification.

Yep life is really not that hard really. Most things take common sense, the kind that most liberals make overly complicated.

Read some of Ronald Reagan, he was the great communicator because he made it simple.

[GileadKnight]

A big part of why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq unilaterally. Iran shares a long border with Iraq -- they have long standing animosity towards us. Did anyone believe that they wouldn't get involved on some level? Would we just stand by meekly if a long standing enemy invaded and occupied Mexico?

I don't like the fools but to expect people to act contrary to their nature is not prudent.

I'm with Zbigniew Brzezinski on this one. We invade Iran, we'll be involved in a serious quagmire stretching across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and likely Pakistan for 20 to 30 years and we'll see our end as a global superpower.

Perhaps if Zbig had shown he had a pair when they took our embassy, we wouldn't be where we are today.

[msny]

Just baseless opinions, not a real story or fact to share. :P

Sure is, are all cons liars or just me?
I want to know how this thread should be reported to the mods.
Thanks

[wolvernova]

Sure is, are all cons liars or just me?
I want to know how this thread should be reported to the mods.
Thanks

LOL no, I have no problem with conservatives in general, nor libs. I don't think I called you a liar at all, but I'm interested in the story about the visiting Iranians. That's all.

What should we report to the mods about this forum?

[cmac2012]

Perhaps if Zbig had shown he had a pair when they took our embassy, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Wrong boy wonder. It was our overthrowing the first democracy they had in '53 that set the stage for the lousy state of relations today. That and propping up pea-brain from hell, Shah Reza Pahlavi for some 26 years.

Yeah, we were going to go in and rescue the hostages hidden around Tehran. They'd have all been killed and we'd have only made things worse.

This is a very difficult problem and right now, much of the youth of Iran leans more in our direction than in the Mullahs.

We bomb, invade, etc. and they're going to rally round the flag and say, "Grandpa, tell us those stories about the 'Great Satan' we didn't want to hear before."

[cmac2012]

Yep life is really not that hard really. Most things take common sense, the kind that most liberals make overly complicated.

Read some of Ronald Reagan, he was the great communicator because he made it simple.
Reagan was a poser and a fool. Get over it.

[JewishMamaof2]

Reagan was a poser and a fool. Get over it.

Wow.:mad: :silenced:

[FA_Hayek]

LOL I like the analogy. That doesn't mean they won't though. And more U.S. soldiers will die. Is that worth it if nothing is achieved? These people will not back down. And I don't want us to push any nationalistic internal movement that keeps the Mullahs in power. We can deal with this now, but if in 40 years they're still in control, we'll be looking back and wishing we never attacked.

They attacked us. Their operatives continue to attack our troops, and train and supply others who also attack us. This is not like we're marching off to slam a peace-loving, unarmed innocent. We are not the aggressor in this particular relationship. We are the retaliator.

The US should never be unwilling to talk (provided the talks are offered sincerely). But we should never be unwilling to respond with crushing force when our soldiers and allies are under attack by an intransigent aggressor.

[msny]

LOL no, I have no problem with conservatives in general, nor libs. I don't think I called you a liar at all, but I'm interested in the story about the visiting Iranians. That's all.

What should we report to the mods about this forum?


Just baseless opinions, not a real story or fact to share. :P


It speaks for itself, if it doesn't, then be clear and explain yourself.
I don't care to dance around sematics.

"not a real story or fact" - I said it was are you saying it is'nt?

[myboyzdad]

It's already a regional war. Time to start making leaders of nations supporting the effort against the US start feeling a little heat.

[msny]

Reagan was a poser and a fool. Get over it.

When liberals attack, and there teeth are exposed the name calling begins.
Par for the course.

Accept the fact he was a great president...

[Operation Northwoods]

We haven't finished kicking Afghanistan and Iraq's ass yet. Iran can wait.

[wolvernova]

It's already a regional war. Time to start making leaders of nations supporting the effort against the US start feeling a little heat.

You'll know when there's a regional war. Missiles will fly, ships will blow up, and you'll be paying $8/gal for your gas. You'll look back at July 2007 as the "end of peace" in the gulf.

[msny]

You'll know when there's a regional war. Missiles will fly, ships will blow up, and you'll be paying $8/gal for your gas. You'll look back at July 2007 as the "end of peace" in the gulf.

One question:
When they acheive nuclear strike capability and decide to attack us (or Israel), what will you say then?

If you deny they will ever do that, explain why not, and why they want this capability in the first place?

[wolvernova]

One question:
When they acheive nuclear strike capability and decide to attack us (or Israel), what will you say then?

If you deny they will ever do that, explain why not, and why they want this capability in the first place?

I don't think they will because if they did, they'd die a fiery death. I think that conflicts with their desire to be a regional superpower.

They want nukes for deterrence.

[wolvernova]

In truth, they are attacking the US troops, although you can make the claim that they are doing so only because the US is neighbouring them in Iraq. Maybe giving Iran an ultimatum not to interfere in Iraq would work.
Although sometimes wars do have to be fought, I think true conservatives should be more cautious in declaring wars. For example, what would happen if the US starts bombing Iran's nuclear reactors and it doesn't know if it succeeds? Or what if when attacking Iran, a civil war breaks out there and many of the Iranian peoples resent the U.S. Military's presence?

Exactly. And if we do start bombing them, and some day they develop the bomb, wouldn't they be more inclined to use it on a country that's been attacking them than one that is not?

[msny]

I don't think they will because if they did, they'd die a fiery death. I think that conflicts with their desire to be a regional superpower.

They want nukes for deterrence.

Your joking aren't you? :))
Deterrence?
From what aggressor?

I thought they WANTED to die for Allah and all that martyr stuff...

But if they should attack us first, you will eat those words.

[FA_Hayek]

You'll know when there's a regional war. Missiles will fly, ships will blow up, and you'll be paying $8/gal for your gas. You'll look back at July 2007 as the "end of peace" in the gulf.

Alternatives?

We are not leaving Iraq, no matter what the handwringers in Congress say or do. We're just not.

So do we do nothing, and let Iran continue their policy of destabilizing a fragile new Iraqi government? Do we let them continue to attack our troops, threaten our ships and provide aid to the terrorists attacking our allies?

Iran must be made to understand that their support of insurgents in Iraq must stop, or Iran will pay a price. If they want to escalate that into a all out war, then Iran will suffer greatly. They are the aggressors here. Not the U.S.

[Operation Northwoods]

So do we do nothing, and let Iran continue their policy of destabilizing a fragile new Iraqi government? Do we let them continue to attack our troops, threaten our ships and provide aid to the terrorists attacking our allies?

What if Iran is an invited guest?



Iran must be made to understand that their support of insurgents in Iraq must stop, or Iran will pay a price. If they want to escalate that into a all out war, then Iran will suffer greatly. They are the aggressors here. Not the U.S.

As I've stated before, Iran is simply taking a page out of our book from the 80's as we fought a proxy war with Russia in Afghanistan.

[wolvernova]

Your joking aren't you? :))
Deterrence?
From what aggressor?

I thought they WANTED to die for Allah and all that martyr stuff...

But if they should attack us first, you will eat those words.

From the U.S., Iraq, Israel, whomever. They have neighbors with nukes and the reality is there's a middle east arms race. Fact is when you have a nuke, other nations won't attack or invade.

Yeah I'll eat those words if they attack. BTW, they're on the other side of the planet, so don't be too afraid of them.:))

[msny]

Exactly. And if we do start bombing them, and some day they develop the bomb, wouldn't they be more inclined to use it on a country that's been attacking them than one that is not?

That presupposes that you know what there thinking and intentions are peacefull.

On the contrary...

Since they have supported Hamas, Hezbollah and the insrugents in Iraq your assumption is flawed.

Once they have the bomb what or who stops them from using it in any of these conflicts?

[msny]

From the U.S., Iraq, Israel, whomever. They have neighbors with nukes and the reality is there's a middle east arms race. Fact is when you have a nuke, other nations won't attack or invade.

Yeah I'll eat those words if they attack. BTW, they're on the other side of the planet, so don't be too afraid of them.:))

Are you maintaining that were the aggressors along with Israel?
Clarify please...

[wolvernova]

Alternatives?

We are not leaving Iraq, no matter what the handwringers in Congress say or do. We're just not.

So do we do nothing, and let Iran continue their policy of destabilizing a fragile new Iraqi government? Do we let them continue to attack our troops, threaten our ships and provide aid to the terrorists attacking our allies?

Iran must be made to understand that their support of insurgents in Iraq must stop, or Iran will pay a price. If they want to escalate that into a all out war, then Iran will suffer greatly. They are the aggressors here. Not the U.S.

Actually there's a very good chance we'll leave Iraq. Remember King George isn't going to run the show in a couple of years, and I don't think things will improve there. I think we should attempt to stop them outside of Iran and kill them if necessary. Should the Soviets have attacked us when we aided the Afghan resistance? That wasn't even in a neighboring country, we had no business there.

You talk about them being the aggressors, but all the self-righteousness in the world isn't going to create a pleasant outcome if we bomb them. Yeah they'll suffer, but we will too and at the end of the day you'll have a crippled economy, thousands more dead troops, and a new generation of U.S.-hating Ahamadinejads. That'll show 'em!

[Operation Northwoods]

GENEVA, June 29 (Reuters) - Iraq's President Jalal Talabani on Friday accused some Arab states of "conniving" against Baghdad for fear it will build a democracy that inspires other peoples in the region to seek greater freedom.

Speaking to a Geneva meeting of the Socialist International, Talabani accused the same states of "laxness" that allowed terrorists from around the Arab world to flood into Iraq.

"Since its liberation from dictatorship, Iraq is coming under an external invasion of terrorists from all parts of the Arab world -- from the Maghreb, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria," declared Talabani, an ethnic Kurd.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29754089.htm

Anyone notice a country missing from the above list? :think:

[wolvernova]

Are you maintaining that were the aggressors along with Israel?
Clarify please...

No I'm saying THEY see it that way. Try to look at things objectively, or if at all possible, through your enemy's eyes. Why do you think they took over our embassy? They're absolutely terrified we'll overthrow their leaders again. A nuke is a valuable insurance card.

[Article]

Your joking aren't you? :))
Deterrence?
From what aggressor?

I thought they WANTED to die for Allah and all that martyr stuff...

But if they should attack us first, you will eat those words.

I too am of the opinion that Iran is developing nukes as a deterrent. The term "nuclear deterrent" didn't just fall out of the sky one day.

Their deterrent is from the US, plain and simple.

The (perceived) aggression is from the US military presence in Afghanistan and the US invasion of Iraq. The Iranians are surrounded on two fronts.

[wolvernova]

GENEVA, June 29 (Reuters) - Iraq's President Jalal Talabani on Friday accused some Arab states of "conniving" against Baghdad for fear it will build a democracy that inspires other peoples in the region to seek greater freedom.

Speaking to a Geneva meeting of the Socialist International, Talabani accused the same states of "laxness" that allowed terrorists from around the Arab world to flood into Iraq.

"Since its liberation from dictatorship, Iraq is coming under an external invasion of terrorists from all parts of the Arab world -- from the Maghreb, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria," declared Talabani, an ethnic Kurd.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29754089.htm

Anyone notice a country missing from the above list? :think:

Gee what a shocker that our "friends" the Sauds are on that list, but not the third part of the axis of evil. If the Sunni violence there stopped, Iraq would be a boring place.

[Operation Northwoods]

Gee what a shocker that our "friends" the Sauds are on that list, but not the third part of the axis of evil. If the Sunni violence there stopped, Iraq would be a boring place.

How quickly we forget this incident:

The detention of the Iranians has upset members of the Iraqi government who are concerned that the arrests will hurt efforts to work with the Iranians on security improvements.
"Two Iranians who are in Iraq at the invitation of the president have been apprehended by the Americans," said Hiwa Osman, Talabani's media adviser. "The president is unhappy about it."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238719,00.html

[FA_Hayek]

Actually there's a very good chance we'll leave Iraq. Remember King George isn't going to run the show in a couple of years, and I don't think things will improve there. I think we should attempt to stop them outside of Iran and kill them if necessary. Should the Soviets have attacked us when we aided the Afghan resistance? That wasn't even in a neighboring country, we had no business there.

The Soviets weren't in Afghanistan to spread freedom and democracy. We also didn't deny supporting the mujahideen. President Reagan flaunted it. Mahmoodie denies supporting the insurgents.

And if you think the next President is simply going to pull up stakes and pull out of Iraq, you don't understand big boy politics. The Democrats' stance on Iraq has nothing to do with success, failure, surges or progress reports. It's all about the White House in 08. Some moonbats on Hannity.com may have lofty philosophical reasons for being pacifists, but none of the people who seek office do.

You talk about them being the aggressors, but all the self-righteousness in the world isn't going to create a pleasant outcome if we bomb them. Yeah they'll suffer, but we will too and at the end of the day you'll have a crippled economy, thousands more dead troops, and a new generation of U.S.-hating Ahamadinejads. That'll show 'em!

Like you said, this could work both ways, couldn't it? A well placed, effective surgical strike, followed by an invitation to serious negotiations, might be just the blowout control we need.

[Article]

How quickly we forget this incident:

The detention of the Iranians has upset members of the Iraqi government who are concerned that the arrests will hurt efforts to work with the Iranians on security improvements.
"Two Iranians who are in Iraq at the invitation of the president have been apprehended by the Americans," said Hiwa Osman, Talabani's media adviser. "The president is unhappy about it."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238719,00.html

Will a more balanced Iraqi govt be as friendly towards Iranian influence?

Will the Iraqis allow a more balanced govt?

[wolvernova]

The Soviets weren't in Afghanistan to spread freedom and democracy. We also didn't deny supporting the mujahideen. President Reagan flaunted it. Mahmoodie denies supporting the insurgents.

And if you think the next President is simply going to pull up stakes and pull out of Iraq, you don't understand big boy politics. The Democrats' stance on Iraq has nothing to do with success, failure, surges or progress reports. It's all about the White House in 08. Some moonbats on Hannity.com may have lofty philosophical reasons for being pacifists, but none of the people who seek office do.

Like you said, this could work both ways, couldn't it? A well placed, effective surgical strike, followed by an invitation to serious negotiations, might be just the blowout control we need.

I don't think I said it could bring about meaningful negotiations, quite the opposite really, but that would certainly be nice.

And I disagree about pulling out of Iraq. The dems are going to easily win in '08 by running on a platform of anti-Bush. That's all they have to do to win, and nothing is more of a Bush legacy than Iraq. I don't know how they'll explain letting the Kurds get squashed again, but if it's Hillary she'll have no unease in lying about it.

[Operation Northwoods]

Will a more balanced Iraqi govt be as friendly towards Iranian influence?

I think so. Iran was no fan of Saddam therefore it's easy to assume they were involved with Iraqi groups who opposed Saddam (I.E. Dawa party, etc.)


Will the Iraqis allow a more balanced govt?

What equates to "balance" in Iraq?

[msny]

I too am of the opinion that Iran is developing nukes as a deterrent. The term "nuclear deterrent" didn't just fall out of the sky one day.

Their deterrent is from the US, plain and simple.

The (perceived) aggression is from the US military presence in Afghanistan and the US invasion of Iraq. The Iranians are surrounded on two fronts.

Garbage. None of our troops in either country are facing off at the border areas. We pose no threat to Iran. On the contrary, we are a stablizing force in the region to counter balance the extremist Iran is fostering. Even moderate Arab regimes grimice at the thought of a nuclear Iran.

The problem with ALL your suppositions always brings it back to blaming the US fot ALL the problems in the region. You make it sound like were ready to engage them in ground combat any second. I think were to buzy for that right now.

Israel has been surrounded on all sides for many years. If anyone should feel threatened its them after so many wars. The Arabs and that nut in Iran have pledged to destroy them. What about that?

They don't need motivations to kill us. There religious zeal is there license. Were the infidels, therefore we must die. There book says so according to there interpretation of it.

Just as Hitler was appeased in the early 30's, you want to find a way out and give them what they want without paying a price for it.

[msny]

I think he is saying that Iran is surrounded by Russia to the North, Pakistan to the East, Israel to the far west and US troops in Iraq to her West, Afghanistan to her East, and the Arabian Penninsula to the Southwest, all nuclear powers.
Even though Iran shouldn't have nukes, it's not entirely unreasonable that they would want them.

Israel was surrounded long before this perceived threat you say Iran "feels"...

[czzzaar]

Yes, let's get it over with. The suspense is killing me.

[LJB1031]

One large NUKE in Tehran, followed by another one every 30 days until these pigs "surrender" and behave.
Which is exactly what we should have done and should still do in Iraq.

[kwilliams21]

Heck yes it's time!!

[Article]

What equates to "balance" in Iraq?

Equal share in govt between the Kurd, Sunni, and Shia population.

(sorry for the untimely response, was in the Libby thread)

[FA_Hayek]

Equal share in govt between the Kurd, Sunni, and Shia population.

(sorry for the untimely response, was in the Libby thread)

Gotta show up and vote though, dontcha?

[Suzanne Miller]

Get our men and women out of Iraq. We can deal with Iran without a boot on the ground. I've said that more than once in interviews and on my website. My grandmother always said, "to kill a snake, you have to cut off the head." Iran is the head. Iraq is in a Civil War and we need to get our young men and women out of there. Obviously, there is no WMD and Saddam is dead. The Sunnis and Shia have hated each others for centuries and nothing we can do will change that but we can, and should, deal with Iran before it gets to the point to which we let North Korea get. No, I am not a war monger but I know that a terrorist country like Iran can not obtain nukes. The first thing they will do is attack Israel and dirty bombs will come across the Mexican border and yes, I am still against the stop loss policy.
12194http://www.endstoploss.com

[Sneaky SF Dude]

We can deal with Iran without a boot on the ground.
Fine. How?

[kenpoman]

I agree, but no war with Iran will get less folks killed. You're right that they don't have much of an organized revolution or real leader. Their paranoid govt is very good at rooting them out. But so was the Shah, and we know where that got him. Many elements that existed just prior to the revolution are present today, it would just evolve in one of two ways to change the situation:
1) Immediate revolt by the public (as seen last week in the riots) might erupt into violence and even more oppressive security, and potentially a removal of the Mullahs from state affairs. Obviously Ahmadinejad would have to go too, and I don't know what would happen to the IRGC.
2) The longer route, which would be the eventual control the new generations would inherit. Until they are attacked, we'll see far fewer Ahmadinejads in the following years. Iran is a natural ally to the U.S., and could become a great friend.

the problem is Iran is already at war with us and has been for 30 years.

Shaw Reza was pitiful at dealing with his problems. low level functionaries paid the price of Khoemini and the communist faction.

your ideas, while humaine (sp), lack a base in real world reality. if I won lotto I'd be living in the Bahamas. both have about the same chance of happening.

[kenpoman]

but I know that a terrorist country like Iran can not obtain nukes.

based on what?
good wishes? positive vibes?

[Article]

Gotta show up and vote though, dontcha?

The Sunnis protested the vote. Big difference between that and just not going to the polls.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

based on what?
good wishes? positive vibes?

I think she means "Cannot be allowed to"

[kenpoman]

I think she means "Cannot be allowed to"

lets hope so.
still, how is that possible without boots on the ground at some point?

[Sneaky SF Dude]

lets hope so.
still, how is that possible without boots on the ground at some point?

I don't know, unless she's planning in issuing them PF Flyers...

[Article]

Fine. How?

I love to hear that too.

[blklab]

I find this ? interesting, another war. Have any of you seen combat, have any of you enlisted for military duty now, or will you be in line to enlist if it spreads to Iran. Just curious.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

I find this ? interesting, another war. Have any of you seen combat, have any of you enlisted for military duty now, or will you be in line to enlist if it spreads to Iran. Just curious.

Yes


Have you?

[kenpoman]

I find this ? interesting, another war. Have any of you seen combat, have any of you enlisted for military duty now, or will you be in line to enlist if it spreads to Iran. Just curious.

I grew up in Tehran.
did you?

[Article]

I grew up in Tehran.
did you?

No ****?

[Sneaky SF Dude]

No ****?

Yes. When I first met him, I debated shooting him. But he's actually ok.:D

[Article]

Yes. When I first met him, I debated shooting him. But he's actually ok.:D

Heh, I'll add that to the list of things I've learned today.

[kenpoman]

No ****?


correct. no poop.
my front yard had a pool and was surrounded by low grade opium poppies.

lived just a few blocks away from the Chinese residental compound.
grump folks. they never came out and wouldn't let non Chinese folks in.

Rays #2 had the best pizza in the muslim world. no sauage or ham, however.
but they did serve beer.

[free2B]

From Comcast news: "In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack echoed Bergner's charges, saying they were "another data point in what is a troubling picture of Iranian negative involvement in Iraq."

This statement from the state dept. should shake them up

[FA_Hayek]

The Sunnis protested the vote. Big difference between that and just not going to the polls.

"We love Democracy! What is it?"

"Well, to make a long story short, it doesn't matter if you're running for Dog Catcher or President, you've got to get your people to the polls."

Dontcha?

[free2B]

"We love Democracy! What is it?"

"Well, to make a long story short, it doesn't matter if you're running for Dog Catcher or President, you've got to get your people to the polls."

Dontcha?


I seem to remember that a higher percentage of Iraqis voted than Americans

[savagemic]

Do you read? Do you see what they are doing in Iraq? Aren't we going to do something about it? They are fueling the fire, training, sending deadly supplies in and fighters.........

Oh I get it, they've declared war with us, huh? :rolleyes:

He's just playing the passive role, don't want to step on any toes, allowing Iran to continue doing what it's doing now. He's afraid to **** off the Mullahs!

[FA_Hayek]

I seem to remember that a higher percentage of Iraqis voted than Americans

Yeah, but more people voted for the next American Idol, too.

[savagemic]

I find this ? interesting, another war. Have any of you seen combat, have any of you enlisted for military duty now, or will you be in line to enlist if it spreads to Iran. Just curious.

Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt! You?

[FA_Hayek]

I find this ? interesting, another war. Have any of you seen combat, have any of you enlisted for military duty now, or will you be in line to enlist if it spreads to Iran. Just curious.

I dug some holes once in a Central American country.

No one was supposed to know we were there, but somebody found out anyway.

We were getting shot at, and we could not shoot back.

Does that count?

[Loyal American]

No ****?Yes, and as sticky as this entire situation is, he has a calming effect on me. I listen to him because I know he has insight that none of us could possible have. I appreciate Kempo as many others do here.

This thread sorta exploded after I got off line last night. I will say that I didn't mean to come off as I probably did to you and wolvernova. I don't think I am emotional like I am perhaps too close to this topic. I want us to succeed in Iraq Article, I want it for my own kids, our troops and America. A success would play a major roll in how we are viewed in the middle east and I am concerned that we are getting derailed by the Iranians and AQ and as Kempo said all we can do right now is kill the them wherever they are outside Irans borders. That will just have to do for right now but I think they better be looking at other options, whatever that may be because they do seem to be stepping up and we just can't allow that!

I really don't know what a win in Iraq would actually land up looking like but I know we can't leave it in a mess because it will only make us an open field day for the dirtbags..........that we can all count on!

[FA_Hayek]

I really don't know what a win in Iraq would actually land up looking like but I know we can't leave it in a mess because it will only make us an open field day for the dirtbags..........that we can all count on!

We won't see what a win in Iraq looks like until we're looking at it through the eyes of our grandchildren.

[Loyal American]

We won't see what a win in Iraq looks like until we're looking at it through the eyes of our grandchildren.Or even our great-grandchildren. All I know and everyone should realize is we can't do what we did in Vietnam and walk out. The effects would be worse than Vietnam and this enemy will follow us home and that you can count on too!

[rhet 2]

Or even our great-grandchildren. All I know and everyone should realize is we can't do what we did in Vietnam and walk out. The effects would be worse than Vietnam and this enemy will follow us home and that you can count on too!

The only way to stop a roach infestation is to follow them home to their nesting ground and wipe them out there, and every other place they try to run to.

We do it now so our great-grandkids are not still fighting this hell on earth 100 years from now.

Wish like hell our own fathers had done it in 1945 instead of letting the roaches regroup and come back stronger than ever.

[A_K_]

Or even our great-grandchildren. All I know and everyone should realize is we can't do what we did in Vietnam and walk out. The effects would be worse than Vietnam and this enemy will follow us home and that you can count on too!

So was the effect of "walking out" in Vietnam catastrophic for this country? Did our economy crash?

Did we lose our superpower status?

Did it stop us from nosing into everyones business but screaming bloody murder when anyone else tried the same trick?

I would say that our country flourished pretty well post Vietnam. And would be just as prosperous if half or more of our troops tripled timed it to the nearest port or helipad tommorrow.

Your grandchildren and great grandchildren will fight plenty of wars of their own and stomping one group out today won't change that.

There has been war every day since more than 2 people walked the Earth and until there is only one man left war will always exist.

[Loyal American]

So was the effect of "walking out" in Vietnam catastrophic for this country? Did our economy crash?

Did we lose our superpower status?

Did it stop us from nosing into everyones business but screaming bloody murder when anyone else tried the same trick?

I would say that our country flourished pretty well post Vietnam. And would be just as prosperous if half or more of our troops tripled timed it to the nearest port or helipad tommorrow.

Your grandchildren and great grandchildren will fight plenty of wars of their own and stomping one group out today won't change that.

There has been war every day since more than 2 people walked the Earth and until there is only one man left war will always exist.How many were killed in Vietnam after we took out of there? That will be mild compared to what will happen in Iraq. Are you ready to live with that? Not only that but the enemy is changed and this one will gather strength from our withdraw and they'll come here because we showed weakness. YOU just don't have a good grasp of who our 21st Century enemy is by the above statement. That's ok because you'll learn soon enough.

[free2B]

How many were killed in Vietnam after we took out of there? That will be mild compared to what will happen in Iraq. Are you ready to live with that? Not only that but the enemy is changed and this one will gather strength from our withdraw and they'll come here because we showed weakness. YOU just don't have a good grasp of who our 21st Century enemy is by the above statement. That's ok because you'll learn soon enough.

You know something loyal they dont learn, they try to blame all the disasters on us, the enemy is nonexistant in their mind, everything can be blamed on our policies. Sadly we are fighting a propaganda war, and they seem to be winning.

[rhet 2]

You know something loyal they dont learn, they try to blame all the disasters on us, the enemy is nonexistant in their mind, everything can be blamed on our policies. Sadly we are fighting a propaganda war, and they seem to be winning.

Unfortunately for them, some of us like to look at ourselves in a mirror and be proud of who we are and how we live our lives, instead of crawling into that nasty sewer of self-hatred, multiplied by some well-deserved scorn from the rest of the world.

BTW: Bin Laden and Zawahiri figured we were too yellow-bellied to stop them from doing any vicious thing they wanted to Americans -- because we cut and ran from Nam.

In point of fact, Zawahiri promised his fellow apes that we would repeat the Nam tuck-tail and run political scam games in Iraq, too. He was right about the anti-war crowd. Dead right on in his evaluation of Kerry and Pelosi and both Clintons -- and of our media blathermouths.

What none of the enemy realizes is that half the nation despises those who refuse fight for what they SAY they believe in just nearly as much as he does.

Nam helped slaughter still more Americans on 9/11 -- and hundreds more since 1979 -- by convincing our enemies that we're nothing but a bunch of yellow-bellied hypocrits who talk the talk but cannot walk the walk of REAL respect for the sanctity of human life, who ourselves have forgotten how to value individual liberty.

Some of us KNOW who to blame for that misjudgment.

[cmac2012]

Wow.:mad: :silenced:He was likeable in many ways. But he didn't even realize he was posing, IMO. So many of us have bought into our national mythic delusions. Somehow believing the world will simply understand that we're the good guys, no matter what.

[cmac2012]

When liberals attack, and there teeth are exposed the name calling begins.
Par for the course.

Accept the fact he was a great president...He was right on a few things. Welfare excesses especially. He was good at projecting a firm iron jaw, whether or not there was any intelligence behind it.

[cmac2012]

Your joking aren't you? :))
Deterrence?
From what aggressor?

I thought they WANTED to die for Allah and all that martyr stuff...

But if they should attack us first, you will eat those words.
We've been rattling the sabers at them for years. They're paranoid. This very thread is a small part of decades long effort to make Iran our bitch, beginning in '53 when we made them our bitch for 26 years.

We've been the other partner in this dance for some time now.

[educ8er]

Leave Iran alone...they will fall apart on their own...just sit back and watch the show...

[Article]

I seem to remember that a higher percentage of Iraqis voted than Americans

This is true. I'd like to add that Israel had its lowest voter turnout ever recently at an astounding 62%.

It makes me wonder about my fellow Americans sometimes ....

FA_H

The Sunni protested/boycotted elections, this is not the same thing as "not going to vote." This leads to problems internally in Iraq when a segment of the population refused to participate in the govt. and just might not have the same feelings toward the govt. Ya think?

[Article]

Yes, and as sticky as this entire situation is, he has a calming effect on me. I listen to him because I know he has insight that none of us could possible have. I appreciate Kempo as many others do here.

This thread sorta exploded after I got off line last night. I will say that I didn't mean to come off as I probably did to you and wolvernova. I don't think I am emotional like I am perhaps too close to this topic. I want us to succeed in Iraq Article, I want it for my own kids, our troops and America. A success would play a major roll in how we are viewed in the middle east and I am concerned that we are getting derailed by the Iranians and AQ and as Kempo said all we can do right now is kill the them wherever they are outside Irans borders. That will just have to do for right now but I think they better be looking at other options, whatever that may be because they do seem to be stepping up and we just can't allow that!

I really don't know what a win in Iraq would actually land up looking like but I know we can't leave it in a mess because it will only make us an open field day for the dirtbags..........that we can all count on!

It's all good LA, I know that your intentions are good.

[msny]

And according to most accounts, Israel became nuclear.
I don't mind Israel having nukes, and I don't think Iran should have them. I am just explaining the logic behind the quest.

There is no logic behind Irans fanactical logic...thats where your explantion goes south

[HiredGoon]

And how, pray tell, will America kick Iran's ass? Surely it will be the other way around if a move is made. Have no lessons been learned in Iraq?

[Sneaky SF Dude]

So was the effect of "walking out" in Vietnam catastrophic for this country? Did our economy crash?

Did we lose our superpower status?

Did it stop us from nosing into everyones business but screaming bloody murder when anyone else tried the same trick?

I would say that our country flourished pretty well post Vietnam. And would be just as prosperous if half or more of our troops tripled timed it to the nearest port or helipad tommorrow.

Your grandchildren and great grandchildren will fight plenty of wars of their own and stomping one group out today won't change that.

There has been war every day since more than 2 people walked the Earth and until there is only one man left war will always exist.

It took the US military from 1975 to about 1983 to get over it. What the libs did in Vietnam taught the enemy how to defeat us. And they've been doing it ever since.

[A_K_]

so from 1975 to present how many interventions/invasions/miltary operations have we run against how many countries? (that were directly our fights not counting people we supplied "arms and training" tor money support to their rebels/governments(depending on which liked us or both if it served our purposes))

Lebanon, Somalia, Libya, Haiti, Panama, Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Liberia, Grenada, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq.

And that wonderful "formula" that works so well in "beating us" has worked how many of those times?

No system that works a single digit percentage of times it is tried is considered to have "worked ever since". Our defeat in Vietnam in the big scheme of things will be seen by history as being as impactful to the United States as the Russian "loss" against the Japanese in 1905.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

so from 1975 to present how many interventions/invasions/miltary operations have we run against how many countries? (that were directly our fights not counting people we supplied "arms and training" tor money support to their rebels/governments(depending on which liked us or both if it served our purposes))

Lebanon, Somalia, Libya, Haiti, Panama, Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Liberia, Grenada, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq.

And that wonderful "formula" that works so well in "beating us" has worked how many of those times?

No system that works a single digit percentage of times it is tried is considered to have "worked ever since". Our defeat in Vietnam in the big scheme of things will be seen by history as being as impactful to the United States as the Russian "loss" against the Japanese in 1905.
The Mogadishu Strategy by Giap was, IMO, a true RMA. It changed the way we fight, it changed the level of commitment and it changed the way they fight.

If you calm down and look at it objectively, you will see what I mean. OJC, Urgent Fury, DS, etc. lasted days or weeks, not months. They were basically over before anyone realized what had happened. Anytime we got our nose bloodied back then, what did we do - we pulled out. You aren't going to get committed allies that way and we've proven it. OIF is really the first fight since Vietnam where we have gotten bloody and stayed. And look at the reaction from the left. Make no mistake about it, once they pull us out of Iraq, A-stan will be next. The only question is how many will we lose.

This latest round of "cut the funding' is nothing more than debate on the Foreign Assitance Act of 2007 - just like the 2004 Act.

Not only did they beat us with it, they got us to quit even trying.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Lebanon - Pulled out

Somalia - Pulled out

Libya - No troops on the ground

Hait - Pulled out

Panama - Please

Sudan - What specifically?

Bosnia - No casualties, achieved nothing

Kosovo - No casualties - achieved nothing

Liberia - NEO, not really an op

Grenada - Please

Kuwait - No casualties, took a week

Afghanistan - Pending

Iraq - The left is working on it

When I say "no casualties", I mean relatively of course. We lose fine soldiers in all of them.

[msny]

You can look back in history and realize that to do nothing is to lose before we can even begin.

I think we can all agree that diplomacy is the BEST way to resolve things. But when the other side refuses to talk or uses delay tactics (vietnam - question of round vs square table) what are the options?

Do nothing - Hitler took advantage of this and conquered most of Europe because isolationism was our mantra - libs want us to return to this era

Do something - negotiate and hope for the best - Korea was a wash, Vietnam a blunder - we lost because we did not have the will in those conflicts to win - our whole country suffered and for what?

Do eveything - our current strategy in Iraq. We have helped establish an elected government, help build the country back up, eliminate Sadam as a threat, stop mass murders - but none of that counts to libs - none of it

We have more positives then negatives. Yet the liberal press and the left would have us beleive that if we repeat the mistakes of Korea and Vietnam it fixes everything like magic.

Just run away and all is fine. So we can help embolden our enemies who have pledged to destroy us EVEN if we withdrew tomorrow. Talking to the terrorists, or Iran or Hamas will end there relgious fervor to destroy us?

I think not, it will give them time to consolidate and expand. Sooner or later a failed policy of continuous withdrawals will catch up to us when they are on our very shores.

Then what?

[wolvernova]

Garbage. None of our troops in either country are facing off at the border areas. We pose no threat to Iran. On the contrary, we are a stablizing force in the region to counter balance the extremist Iran is fostering. Even moderate Arab regimes grimice at the thought of a nuclear Iran.

The problem with ALL your suppositions always brings it back to blaming the US fot ALL the problems in the region. You make it sound like were ready to engage them in ground combat any second. I think were to buzy for that right now.

Israel has been surrounded on all sides for many years. If anyone should feel threatened its them after so many wars. The Arabs and that nut in Iran have pledged to destroy them. What about that?

They don't need motivations to kill us. There religious zeal is there license. Were the infidels, therefore we must die. There book says so according to there interpretation of it.

Just as Hitler was appeased in the early 30's, you want to find a way out and give them what they want without paying a price for it.

Just because you don't see the U.S. as a threat to Iran doesn't mean they don't. Who cares what you think? Iran's leadership is paranoid and the very fact that we haven't talked to them in 28 years should suggest that we want the mullahs out. We didn't support Saddam during that brutal war because he was a swell guy. So yeah, I think it's pretty obvious that they see us as a huge threat and would like a nuke as deterrence.

Funny you mention Israel: why do they need such a large nuclear arsenal? Deterrence!

[ArmyCowboy]

Originally Posted by msny
Your joking aren't you?
Deterrence?
From what aggressor?

I thought they WANTED to die for Allah and all that martyr stuff...

But if they should attack us first, you will eat those words.

If you put yourself in their shoes, it's very easy to see how they perceive the US as an aggressor and an immenant threat.

Let's say another country invaded Mexico and Canada, effected regime change to a government that mirrors their own and not ours and claimed that they were doing it for the good of the Mexican and Canadian people and were in effect, stabilizing North America.

[wolvernova]

Yes, and as sticky as this entire situation is, he has a calming effect on me. I listen to him because I know he has insight that none of us could possible have. I appreciate Kempo as many others do here.

This thread sorta exploded after I got off line last night. I will say that I didn't mean to come off as I probably did to you and wolvernova. I don't think I am emotional like I am perhaps too close to this topic. I want us to succeed in Iraq Article, I want it for my own kids, our troops and America. A success would play a major roll in how we are viewed in the middle east and I am concerned that we are getting derailed by the Iranians and AQ and as Kempo said all we can do right now is kill the them wherever they are outside Irans borders. That will just have to do for right now but I think they better be looking at other options, whatever that may be because they do seem to be stepping up and we just can't allow that!

I really don't know what a win in Iraq would actually land up looking like but I know we can't leave it in a mess because it will only make us an open field day for the dirtbags..........that we can all count on!

You're much more tame and on-topic than the majority in these threads. Ultimately my gripe is that an open attack on Iran (as opposed to their deniable actions against us in Iraq) will really screw the pooch. I think based on Iran's history that they'll hit back and keep hitting back and Iraq, the mess it is now, will be permanently screwed and our economy devastated. Considering how fractional their aid is to the Iraq conflict, I don't think we should touch them until we find them in Iraq. More than anything else, I want the Mullahs out of Iran and us striking them will have the opposite effect.

[ArmyCowboy]

You're much more tame and on-topic than the majority in these threads. Ultimately my gripe is that an open attack on Iran (as opposed to their deniable actions against us in Iraq) will really screw the pooch. I think based on Iran's history that they'll hit back and keep hitting back and Iraq, the mess it is now, will be permanently screwed and our economy devastated. Considering how fractional their aid is to the Iraq conflict, I don't think we should touch them until we find them in Iraq. More than anything else, I want the Mullahs out of Iran and us striking them will have the opposite effect.

What you seem to realize, and most of the hawks don't, is that Persians are some of the most nationalistic people on earth.

An attack on Iran will galvanize the population in a nationalistic ferver, making profets of the mullahs and MA who have been preaching about American imperialism.

Basically, it will play right into their hands.

[msny]

Just because you don't see the U.S. as a threat to Iran doesn't mean they don't. Who cares what you think? Iran's leadership is paranoid and the very fact that we haven't talked to them in 28 years should suggest that we want the mullahs out. We didn't support Saddam during that brutal war because he was a swell guy. So yeah, I think it's pretty obvious that they see us as a huge threat and would like a nuke as deterrence.

Funny you mention Israel: why do they need such a large nuclear arsenal? Deterrence!

Hmmm...all this sympathy and empathy for these guys just tears me up. You just keep saying you KNOW how they feel. Put yourself in there place...yada yada...

OK fine lets do that for a second hypothetically . We withdraw from the region entirely. Say we even stop supporting Israel.

Now they feel better right?

Do they give up the nukes?
Do they stop arresting everyday citizens as spies?
Do they repent and take back there threats agains the Jews?
Do they stop helping funding terrroist in Iraq, Lebenon, Syria and Israel?
Do they stop funding Hamas in Gaza?
Do they give up there fanaticism?

All this is for there security and so they can feel better.

Whats your plan AFTER we do all this, after all we want to be sympathtic ?

[msny]

If you put yourself in their shoes, it's very easy to see how they perceive the US as an aggressor and an immenant threat.

Let's say another country invaded Mexico and Canada, effected regime change to a government that mirrors their own and not ours and claimed that they were doing it for the good of the Mexican and Canadian people and were in effect, stabilizing North America.

Hmmm...sounds like pullling Bill out of the closet to me
"I feel your pain..."

Lets hope that scenerio never happens. But if we run from these guys it could.

I'm not adverse to talking with Iran, we have made a few gestures in that direction recently. The question is that it takes both sides to talk and there rhetoric towards us is not concilartory.

I understand your point but the motivations would be totally different.

[Article]

I'm not adverse to talking with Iran, we have made a few gestures in that direction recently. The question is that it takes both sides to talk and there rhetoric towards us is not concilartory.

The US rhetoric towards Iran hasn't exactly been all sunshine and happy faces.

Axis of Evil ...

[Article]

Hmmm...all this sympathy and empathy for these guys just tears me up. You just keep saying you KNOW how they feel. Put yourself in there place...yada yada...

I don't think anyone is asking you to sympathize with them at all.

Just to realize that there are reasons deeper than threatening Israel behind Iran's development of nuclear weapons and that the US has a big role in their motivations.

AKA - try not to look at things with ethnocentric eyes

[wolvernova]

Hmmm...all this sympathy and empathy for these guys just tears me up. You just keep saying you KNOW how they feel. Put yourself in there place...yada yada...

OK fine lets do that for a second hypothetically . We withdraw from the region entirely. Say we even stop supporting Israel.

Now they feel better right?

Do they give up the nukes?
Do they stop arresting everyday citizens as spies?
Do they repent and take back there threats agains the Jews?
Do they stop helping funding terrroist in Iraq, Lebenon, Syria and Israel?
Do they stop funding Hamas in Gaza?
Do they give up there fanaticism?

All this is for there security and so they can feel better.

Whats your plan AFTER we do all this, after all we want to be sympathtic ?

Where did I say I know how they feel? I'm calling you out, so you better have an answer.

There is no easy way to deal with them, nor a simple plan, but anyone that knows anything about how Iran's govt works will tell you that they are extremely paranoid. Why do you think they're rounding up all the US/Iranian dual citizens? They think they're spies and with us occupying two neighboring countries and parking three ships off their coast, you'd have to be brain-dead not to think they're scared.

You're jumping all over the place in your unlettered response so I'm going to stick to the main question/issue you posed and ignore the other garbage.

[FA_Hayek]

What you seem to realize, and most of the hawks don't, is that Persians are some of the most nationalistic people on earth.

An attack on Iran will galvanize the population in a nationalistic ferver, making profets of the mullahs and MA who have been preaching about American imperialism.

Basically, it will play right into their hands.

If that's the case, then why didn't the "Persians" change the name of the country back to Persia after the revolution? Do you know what the current name of the country means in Farsi?

Highlight the area between the lines below for the secret answer:


---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Iran" is Farsi for "Aryan," and the name was changed by Reza Shah
Pahlavi, in 1935. He did this out of reverence for Hitler's Third Reich
and to align his regime with the Proto-Indo-European lineage that Nazi
racial theorists and Persian ethnologists cherished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

So much for Persian national pride.

[wolvernova]

I don't think anyone is asking you to sympathize with them at all.

Just to realize that there are reasons deeper than threatening Israel behind Iran's development of nuclear weapons and that the US has a big role in their motivations.

AKA - try not to look at things without ethnocentric eyes

Article, it is without a doubt impossible for msny to do that. Inward looking, completely unable to look at an issue objectively or through someone else's eyes.

[bonchie]

Article, it is without a doubt impossible for msny to do that. Inward looking, completely unable to look at an issue objectively or through someone else's eyes.

If they are developing Nuclear Weapons because of us...too bad.

Thats still not a valid excuse in my book and we still can't let them get them.

[phxtvpro]

I don't think anyone is asking you to sympathize with them at all.

Just to realize that there are reasons deeper than threatening Israel behind Iran's development of nuclear weapons and that the US has a big role in their motivations.

AKA - try not to look at things with ethnocentric eyes
Like?

The US is in the region routing out and killing rogue regimes who sponsor terrorism?

Because Iran was declared one of the "Axis of Evil"?

Because Iran has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" and are actively seeking the means to do it?

[phxtvpro]

Article, it is without a doubt impossible for msny to do that. Inward looking, completely unable to look at an issue objectively or through someone else's eyes.You want everyone to look at this issue "through someone else's eyes". Whose eyes? The Iranians terrorists? You want objectivity? How about dropping your hatred of Israel and realize that Iran has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"? Maybe YOU need to stop sympathizing with the enemy of the US.

[Article]

Like?

The US is in the region routing out and killing rogue regimes who sponsor terrorism?

Because Iran was declared one of the "Axis of Evil"?

Because Iran has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" and are actively seeking the means to do it?

Yeah, kinda like a deterrent from being next on the US list of countries to "Democratize."

IMO the "wipe Israel off the map" is lip service and big bad talk but in the end Iran knows they will be annihilated if they were to nuke Israel.

And as I've said before; if Israel is so threatened by Iran then she can go right ahead and defend herself, she is more than capable.

[Article]

You want everyone to look at this issue "through someone else's eyes". Whose eyes? The Iranians terrorists? You want objectivity? How about dropping your hatred of Israel and realize that Iran has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"? Maybe YOU need to stop sympathizing with the enemy of the US.

Just couldn't resist playing the "hatred of Israel" card could you?

[FA_Hayek]

Remember this?

'I warned that there should be no place on earth where terrorists can rest and train and practice their deadly skills. I meant it. I said that we should act with others, if possible, and alone, if necessary, to insure that terrorists have no sanctuary anywhere. 'Tonight we have. When our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world, we will respond in self-defense.

"If necessary, we will do it again.''

[wolvernova]

Just couldn't resist playing the "hatred of Israel" card could you?

Of course not. Any attempt at an objective geopolitical analysis or being even-handed in geopolitics has to be an attack on Israel. Funny thing is I wasn't even talking about Israel. While I don't have any negative feelings towards this said country, I understand why some people do. It's the true infringement of free speech in this country where you'll be labeled as a bigot for not confessing unwaivering support for another country. It even trumps patriotism since the two are absolutely conflated in the minds of these extremists.

[msny]

Article, it is without a doubt impossible for msny to do that. Inward looking, completely unable to look at an issue objectively or through someone else's eyes.

What?

You don't know me, what I'm about, or who I am...

If you want to judge your Iranian friends motivations go ahead. But don't try to judge mine...

[msny]

Where did I say I know how they feel? I'm calling you out, so you better have an answer.

There is no easy way to deal with them, nor a simple plan, but anyone that knows anything about how Iran's govt works will tell you that they are extremely paranoid. Why do you think they're rounding up all the US/Iranian dual citizens? They think they're spies and with us occupying two neighboring countries and parking three ships off their coast, you'd have to be brain-dead not to think they're scared.

You're jumping all over the place in your unlettered response so I'm going to stick to the main question/issue you posed and ignore the other garbage.

I'd have to list amost every one of your posts in the last 4 or 5 pages.
Sorry I don't have the time....

[msny]

If that's the case, then why didn't the "Persians" change the name of the country back to Persia after the revolution? Do you know what the current name of the country means in Farsi?

Highlight the area between the lines below for the secret answer:


---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Iran" is Farsi for "Aryan," and the name was changed by Reza Shah
Pahlavi, in 1935. He did this out of reverence for Hitler's Third Reich
and to align his regime with the Proto-Indo-European lineage that Nazi
racial theorists and Persian ethnologists cherished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

So much for Persian national pride.


Wow, very interesting indeed.

[rhet 2]

Of course not. Any attempt at an objective geopolitical analysis or being even-handed in geopolitics has to be an attack on Israel. Funny thing is I wasn't even talking about Israel. While I don't have any negative feelings towards this said country, I understand why some people do. It's the true infringement of free speech in this country where you'll be labeled as a bigot for not confessing unwaivering support for another country. It even trumps patriotism since the two are absolutely conflated in the minds of these extremists.

Objectivity is a rationalist's daydream. It does NOT exist. Because, no way in hell you can BE somebody else, having endured their own indoctrinations by both speech and event since birth.

The best you can do is sympathize and try to do as little damage as possible to somebody else's life.

But you are YOU and cannot be anybody but you, and the second you try to be "objective," or "see through somebody else's eyes," you guarantee two things: 1) you will shape the other person into a carbon copy of yourself, interpreting his/her actions as though you were criticizing yourself, imputing to him your own mentalite and 2) you become a bigoted fool, and a hypocrit, patting yourself on the back for being something you are not.

Guess what? IRANIAN MULLAHS DO NOT THINK LIKE YOU DO. THEY DO NOT SHARE YOUR EDUCATION YOUR VALUES YOUR HOPES AND DREAMS

And stop pasting a false image of yourself on top of somebody else's soul.

Learn to take people at face value, based ONLY on their own words and their own actions, and you'll stop being such a damned poor judge of character.

And, when you learn to be honest with yourself, who you are, what you want, what you need -- and presenting that HONEST BLUNT image of Self to the world, you'll stop being a hypocrit and deceiving others into thinking you to be what you are not.

Tehran screwed up big time because the mullahs BELIEVE that mass murder for the glory of Allah is a WORTHY CAUSE -- and I find mass murder, torture, rape, slavery, child abuse, sexual perversions including raping animals, etc., TOTALLY DISGUSTING and totally unacceptable behaviors.

Now, one of us has to go, because I can't live with their unrestraint and perpertual warmaking nor with their animalistic brutality and they can't live with my anti-persecution of atheists and homosexuals and prostitutes and drug-addicts and drunkards and women and children standards.

And, buddy boy, I'm doing everything in my power to see that I AM NOT THE ONE who has to go.

Now, figure out how to convince the mullahs to become good little humanists and give up their addiction to animal brutalities or take a hike. Because that crap HAS TO STOP, one way or the other.

[wolvernova]

I'd have to list amost every one of your posts in the last 4 or 5 pages.
Sorry I don't have the time....

Ok smart guy, just list one where I say I know what they're thinking. You don't have to list all, just one that'll shut me up. You won't, because you're a liar.

[wolvernova]

Objectivity is a rationalist's daydream. It does NOT exist. Because, no way in hell you can BE somebody else, having endured their own indoctrinations by both speech and event since birth.

The best you can do is sympathize and try to do as little damage as possible to somebody else's life.

But you are YOU and cannot be anybody but you, and the second you try to be "objective," or "see through somebody else's eyes," you guarantee two things: 1) you will shape the other person into a carbon copy of yourself, interpreting his/her actions as though you were criticizing yourself, imputing to him your own mentalite and 2) you become a bigoted fool, and a hypocrit, patting yourself on the back for being something you are not.

Guess what? IRANIAN MULLAHS DO NOT THINK LIKE YOU DO. THEY DO NOT SHARE YOUR EDUCATION YOUR VALUES YOUR HOPES AND DREAMS

And stop pasting a false image of yourself on top of somebody else's soul.

Learn to take people at face value, based ONLY on their own words and their own actions, and you'll stop being such a damned poor judge of character.

And, when you learn to be honest with yourself, who you are, what you want, what you need -- and presenting that HONEST BLUNT image of Self to the world, you'll stop being a hypocrit and deceiving others into thinking you to be what you are not.

Tehran screwed up big time because the mullahs BELIEVE that mass murder for the glory of Allah is a WORTHY CAUSE -- and I find mass murder, torture, rape, slavery, child abuse, sexual perversions including raping animals, etc., TOTALLY DISGUSTING and totally unacceptable behaviors.

Now, one of us has to go, because I can't live with their unrestraint and perpertual warmaking nor with their animalistic brutality and they can't live with my anti-persecution of atheists and homosexuals and prostitutes and drug-addicts and drunkards and women and children standards.

And, buddy boy, I'm doing everything in my power to see that I AM NOT THE ONE who has to go.

Now, figure out how to convince the mullahs to become good little humanists and give up their addiction to animal brutalities or take a hike. Because that crap HAS TO STOP, one way or the other.

LOL that's paranoid warmongering at its worst. And did I just read an argument for not being objective, or even attempting? You tell that to any intel analyst and they'll laugh in your face. That's anti-intellectualism and it's one of the biggest drains in this country.

You're on one hand saying that I can never look at things through their eyes because they are of a different mentality, yet at the same time that your divine ability to see it in their eyes tells you that they're going to destroy us all. You can't have it both ways.

[ArmyCowboy]

If that's the case, then why didn't the "Persians" change the name of the country back to Persia after the revolution? Do you know what the current name of the country means in Farsi?

Highlight the area between the lines below for the secret answer:


---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Iran" is Farsi for "Aryan," and the name was changed by Reza Shah
Pahlavi, in 1935. He did this out of reverence for Hitler's Third Reich
and to align his regime with the Proto-Indo-European lineage that Nazi
racial theorists and Persian ethnologists cherished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

So much for Persian national pride.

Actually, sort of.

While many Germans of the time (Nazis in particular) advocated the name change, Iran or Eran was used by the Greek historian Eratosthenes and derives from the old Persian word ariya, akin to the Sanskrit Aryavarta. The Sassanids also called their empire Ēran-shahr ("empire of the Iranians") or Ēran-zamin ("land of the Iranians").

Furthermore, the Shah at the time was undergoing a modernization effort and felt that "Persia" referred to what was essentially dead empire and did not fit into his modern vision of Iraq.

His son, after a committee's findings, decried that Persia and Iran could be used interchangably.

[MrSpock]

Just heard an interesting statistic:

Last year more people drowned in bathtubs in the USA than were killed in terrorist attacks WORLDWIDE.

Remember this statistic the next time you see George Bush promoting his "War on Terror". (and when you see Rudy Giuliani playing the "terror card" in his campaign.)

Let's try and keep things in perspective.

[wolvernova]

Just heard an interesting statistic:

Last year more people drowned in bathtubs in the USA than were killed in terrorist attacks WORLDWIDE.

Remember this statistic the next time you see George Bush promoting his "War on Terror". (and when you see Rudy Giuliani playing the "terror card" in his campaign.)

Let's try and keep things in perspective.

OMG bomb the bathtubs! You're either with us or with the tubs. At least that's the level of rage and disregard for human life in these threads.

[101st. Combatmedic]

I just read all the posts here and decided to put in my 2 cents.

It's a hard decision but I would have to say that we absolutely, positively DO NOT bomb Iran. We are in no position to fight a war on three fronts. We'd have to stabilize Iraq, deal with fighting a war with Iran which won't be as easy as taking down the Iraqi Army. And deal with Afghanistan. I think it can't be done. Unless you want to start up a draft and call up ALL the reserves. The American people will never go for that. The next president will never commit political suicide and attempt that. Unless Bush decides to make another mistake and start another war to complete his legacy as one of the worst presidents in history.

Let's suppose we did bomb and invade Iran. We work our way to Tehran, defeat all their forces, wipe out their airforce, and it's ours. What then? Build two nations? We should've already learned from Vietnam that the politics of nation building does not work. When you bring politics into it I will fail. We will end up having the restricted ROE that we have now and there will be more useless American deaths.

I say bring us all back. Use the money that would have been spent on Iraq to build that fence that we have all been talking about, and worry about what is happening here for a change. And don't give me that garbage that the fight will end up here. If we seal the border and get some competent people watching it then maybe, just maybe we can finally worry about something important like Healthcare for those that don't have it.

[wolvernova]

I just read all the posts here and decided to put in my 2 cents.

It's a hard decision but I would have to say that we absolutely, positively DO NOT bomb Iran. We are in no position to fight a war on three fronts. We'd have to stabilize Iraq, deal with fighting a war with Iran which won't be as easy as taking down the Iraqi Army. And deal with Afghanistan. I think it can't be done. Unless you want to start up a draft and call up ALL the reserves. The American people will never go for that. The next president will never commit political suicide and attempt that. Unless Bush decides to make another mistake and start another war to complete his legacy as one of the worst presidents in history.

Let's suppose we did bomb and invade Iran. We work our way to Tehran, defeat all their forces, wipe out their airforce, and it's ours. What then? Build two nations? We should've already learned from Vietnam that the politics of nation building does not work. When you bring politics into it I will fail. We will end up having the restricted ROE that we have now and there will be more useless American deaths.

I say bring us all back. Use the money that would have been spent on Iraq to build that fence that we have all been talking about, and worry about what is happening here for a change. And don't give me that garbage that the fight will end up here. If we seal the border and get some competent people watching it then maybe, just maybe we can finally worry about something important like Healthcare for those that don't have it.

You are talking sensibly. That's not tolerated by the uneducated mouth-breathers in these threads. Any attempt in making accurate historical and geopolitical observations is in contempt of the stupidity of other posters.

[GileadKnight]

..::snipped::..
Let's suppose we did bomb and invade Iran. We work our way to Tehran, defeat all their forces, wipe out their airforce, and it's ours. What then? Build two nations?


Reminds me of a Dennis Leary quote.

“I think we should take Iraq and Iran and combine them into one country and call it Irate. All the ****ed off people live in one place and get it over with.”

[101st. Combatmedic]

Reminds me of a Dennis Leary quote.
[/B]



Never heard that before but it's awsome :)) :)) :))

[msny]

Objectivity is a rationalist's daydream. It does NOT exist. Because, no way in hell you can BE somebody else, having endured their own indoctrinations by both speech and event since birth.

The best you can do is sympathize and try to do as little damage as possible to somebody else's life.

But you are YOU and cannot be anybody but you, and the second you try to be "objective," or "see through somebody else's eyes," you guarantee two things: 1) you will shape the other person into a carbon copy of yourself, interpreting his/her actions as though you were criticizing yourself, imputing to him your own mentalite and 2) you become a bigoted fool, and a hypocrit, patting yourself on the back for being something you are not.

Guess what? IRANIAN MULLAHS DO NOT THINK LIKE YOU DO. THEY DO NOT SHARE YOUR EDUCATION YOUR VALUES YOUR HOPES AND DREAMS

And stop pasting a false image of yourself on top of somebody else's soul.

Learn to take people at face value, based ONLY on their own words and their own actions, and you'll stop being such a damned poor judge of character.

And, when you learn to be honest with yourself, who you are, what you want, what you need -- and presenting that HONEST BLUNT image of Self to the world, you'll stop being a hypocrit and deceiving others into thinking you to be what you are not.

Tehran screwed up big time because the mullahs BELIEVE that mass murder for the glory of Allah is a WORTHY CAUSE -- and I find mass murder, torture, rape, slavery, child abuse, sexual perversions including raping animals, etc., TOTALLY DISGUSTING and totally unacceptable behaviors.

Now, one of us has to go, because I can't live with their unrestraint and perpertual warmaking nor with their animalistic brutality and they can't live with my anti-persecution of atheists and homosexuals and prostitutes and drug-addicts and drunkards and women and children standards.

And, buddy boy, I'm doing everything in my power to see that I AM NOT THE ONE who has to go.

Now, figure out how to convince the mullahs to become good little humanists and give up their addiction to animal brutalities or take a hike. Because that crap HAS TO STOP, one way or the other.

Well put and well said.

Not being the one to go is a worthy goal....

[msny]

Ok smart guy, just list one where I say I know what they're thinking. You don't have to list all, just one that'll shut me up. You won't, because you're a liar.

As with most liberal arguments they tend to seek the lowest common demoninator...name calling...when there arguments are exhausted...

It is apparent that a civil debate with this kind of atmosphere is pointless.

We will see what the mods say about it.

[rhet 2]

As with most liberal arguments they tend to seek the lowest common demoninator...name calling...when there arguments are exhausted...

It is apparent that a civil debate with this kind of atmosphere is pointless.

We will see what the mods say about it.

What arguments?

All I've seen from the Left are unsubstantiated emotional blathering.

[wolvernova]

As with most liberal arguments they tend to seek the lowest common demoninator...name calling...when there arguments are exhausted...

It is apparent that a civil debate with this kind of atmosphere is pointless.

We will see what the mods say about it.

It's denominator, not demoninator. All I wanted was for you to find a quote of me saying that and you can't. You made it up. Someone that says something untruthful, as you did, is in fact lying. I call you out and you are threatening mod action? That's pathetic.

[kenpoman]

If that's the case, then why didn't the "Persians" change the name of the country back to Persia after the revolution? Do you know what the current name of the country means in Farsi?

Highlight the area between the lines below for the secret answer:


---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Iran" is Farsi for "Aryan," and the name was changed by Reza Shah
Pahlavi, in 1935. He did this out of reverence for Hitler's Third Reich
and to align his regime with the Proto-Indo-European lineage that Nazi
racial theorists and Persian ethnologists cherished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

So much for Persian national pride.

clueless.
absolutely clueless.
and nowhere in this tripe does it deal with the issue of how
prideful and nationalist they are.

Iranians ARE racially aryan. not arabs, not asians.

[kenpoman]

Actually, sort of.

While many Germans of the time (Nazis in particular) advocated the name change, Iran or Eran was used by the Greek historian Eratosthenes and derives from the old Persian word ariya, akin to the Sanskrit Aryavarta. The Sassanids also called their empire Ēran-shahr ("empire of the Iranians") or Ēran-zamin ("land of the Iranians").

Furthermore, the Shah at the time was undergoing a modernization effort and felt that "Persia" referred to what was essentially dead empire and did not fit into his modern vision of Iraq.

His son, after a committee's findings, decried that Persia and Iran could be used interchangably.

beat me to it. damn.

[TheFallGuy]

clueless.
absolutely clueless.
and nowhere in this tripe does it deal with the issue of how
prideful and nationalist they are.

Iranians ARE racially aryan. not arabs, not asians.

I've known several iranians. Extremely nationalistic.

[kenpoman]

LOL that's paranoid warmongering at its worst. And did I just read an argument for not being objective, or even attempting? You tell that to any intel analyst and they'll laugh in your face. That's anti-intellectualism and it's one of the biggest drains in this country.

You're on one hand saying that I can never look at things through their eyes because they are of a different mentality, yet at the same time that your divine ability to see it in their eyes tells you that they're going to destroy us all. You can't have it both ways.

while I have some disagreements in small matters, Rhet has nailed the essence of the conflict dead on.

[kenpoman]

I've known several iranians. Extremely nationalistic.

I like to use Imperial Japan circa 30s & 40s as a reference for islamic Iran.
fanatically nationalistic, militarily imperialistic (though thru 3rd parties), belief they are Gods gift to the human race, and convinced they are acting out divine instructions.

[msny]

What arguments?

All I've seen from the Left are unsubstantiated emotional blathering.

True, but I think being civil is what makes us civilized.

[wolvernova]

clueless.
absolutely clueless.
and nowhere in this tripe does it deal with the issue of how
prideful and nationalist they are.

Iranians ARE racially aryan. not arabs, not asians.

FA_Hayek of course wants to insinuate a huge antisemitic plot by Iran, ignoring the fact you just presented along with the fact that going so far back as 500 B.C. during the time of Darius the Great (King of Persia) they referred to themselves as Aryan. It's not some amazing coincidence or Nazi-worshiping, despite what the conspiracy theorists rant. It's a centuries old ethnic description.

[msny]

I like to use Imperial Japan circa 30s & 40s as a reference for islamic Iran.
fanatically nationalistic, militarily imperialistic (though thru 3rd parties), belief they are Gods gift to the human race, and convinced they are acting out divine instructions.

Actually, that is better then using Hitler and the Nazi's with better examples.

[kenpoman]

FA_Hayek of course wants to insinuate a huge antisemitic plot by Iran, ignoring the fact you just presented along with the fact that going so far back as 500 B.C. during the time of Darius the Great (King of Persia) they referred to themselves as Aryan. It's not some amazing coincidence or Nazi-worshiping, despite what the conspiracy theorists rant. It's a centuries old ethnic description.

I don't think FA is trying to make a Nazi link near as much as - like most folks in this country - they know very, very, very little about the world's first real superpower.

what concerns me more is the cavalier attitude taken towards an enemy he knows nothing about. I've seen it before, and it tends to end badly.
in 1980 that attitude by that vile Jimmy Carter and his band of arrogant fools led to US military personnel being burned to death in the desert and their corpses displayed on TV triumphantly to the muslim world.

at this moment I don't see a way around war with Iran. taking them lightly will only lead to more US casualties -here and in Iran.

[kenpoman]

Actually, that is better then using Hitler and the Nazi's with better examples.

once in awhile I have my moments.

[Article]

What arguments?

All I've seen from the Left are unsubstantiated emotional blathering.

Pot meet kettle.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

The US rhetoric towards Iran hasn't exactly been all sunshine and happy faces.

Axis of Evil ...

It's not really rhetoric in the sense you use the word if you can actually do what you say you can.

[Article]

It's not really rhetoric in the sense you use the word if you can actually do what you say you can.

We can make them evil?

:razz:

[FA_Hayek]

FA_Hayek of course wants to insinuate a huge antisemitic plot by Iran, ignoring the fact you just presented along with the fact that going so far back as 500 B.C. during the time of Darius the Great (King of Persia) they referred to themselves as Aryan. It's not some amazing coincidence or Nazi-worshiping, despite what the conspiracy theorists rant. It's a centuries old ethnic description.

I insinuated nothing of the kind. But now that you mention it, the similarities between the Third Reich's philosophy and that of the current Iranian regime are interesting, aren't they? One came perilously close to destroying the Israelites while the other wishes to see them wiped off of the map.

What I was referring to was an allegedly fervent nationalist people allowing their nation's name to be changed by a despot who was enamored with another despot, while knowing that the latter despot's idea of "Aryan" was blue eyed and blonde. How many indigenous blue eyed blondes are there in Iran?

I assure you that Hitler' had no room in the master race gene pool for a bunch of smelly Ziege Herderen.

[kenpoman]

We can make them evil?

:razz:

sadly, they did it to themselves

[kenpoman]

How many indigenous blue eyed blondes are there in Iran?[/i]

you'd be surprised. though the blondes tend to be the the dirty blonde type.
more common is red hair and green eyes.

many are fair skinned, too

keep in mind actual, real blondes make up less than 15% of the worlds gene pool.

[Article]

you'd be surprised. though the blondes tend to be the the dirty blonde type.
more common is red hair and green eyes.

keep in mind actual, real blondes make up less than 15% of the worlds gene pool.

As opposed to the 70% of women with blond hair and black eyebrows.

False advertising ...

[kenpoman]

As opposed to the 70% of women with blond hair and black eyebrows.

False advertising ...

I read somewhere 52% of all white women in the US were blonde.
7& of them were natural.

[wolvernova]

I insinuated nothing of the kind. But now that you mention it, the similarities between the Third Reich's philosophy and that of the current Iranian regime are interesting, aren't they? One came perilously close to destroying the Israelites while the other wishes to see them wiped off of the map.

What I was referring to was an allegedly fervent nationalist people allowing their nation's name to be changed by a despot who was enamored with another despot, while knowing that the latter despot's idea of "Aryan" was blue eyed and blonde. How many indigenous blue eyed blondes are there in Iran?

I assure you that Hitler' had no room in the master race gene pool for a bunch of smelly Ziege Herderen.

It was the implication that their current name is derived from a love of the Nazis, when in fact it's a term that Persians/Iranians have been using to describe themselves for thousands of years, not as of 1935.

[kenpoman]

It was the implication that their current name is derived from a love of the Nazis, when in fact it's a term that Persians/Iranians have been using to describe themselves for thousands of years, not as of 1935.

it would probably be incorrect to assume the name change had nothing to do with Hitler's rise to power. my bet is "they" saw a chance to capitalize on racial reality to cosy up to who they thought was gonna be the winner.

but one does not mean the other in overriding fact.

[Jhary]

...to foof Iran...they should have been taken out years ago...1979 to be exact...and if not then, 2 years ago when we first discovered they were supplying the insurgents with IED's. Syria should have been conquered already as well.

[Article]

...to foof Iran...they should have been taken out years ago...1979 to be exact...and if not then, 2 years ago when we first discovered they were supplying the insurgents with IED's. Syria should have been conquered already as well.

Yep!

You can never have enough war!

[msny]

It was the implication that their current name is derived from a love of the Nazis, when in fact it's a term that Persians/Iranians have been using to describe themselves for thousands of years, not as of 1935.

History is full of copy kats trying to outdo the orginial.
I think the implication is

"if the shoe fits, wear it"

and yes I mispelled kats on purpose...

[cmac2012]

It took the US military from 1975 to about 1983 to get over it. What the libs did in Vietnam taught the enemy how to defeat us. And they've been doing it ever since.
What Vietnam ought to have taught is that there are limits to what military force can accomplish when you're on the wrong side of history.

Sneaky Pete utterly does not get it.

[wolvernova]

...to foof Iran...they should have been taken out years ago...1979 to be exact...and if not then, 2 years ago when we first discovered they were supplying the insurgents with IED's. Syria should have been conquered already as well.

There will be no "taking them out" rather it will have the adverse consequence of "keeping them in." Maybe this is news to you, but the two-thirds of Iranians that are under the age of 30 really don't like their leaders, and in some cases even Islam. Foofing them would drive that crowd right into the arms of the Islamic revolutionaries. You're begging to create 50 million Ahmadinejads that we'll have to deal with over the next 30 years out of a generation of pro-western Iranians. That and the prospect of Iranian retaliation are not a good path to go down, but nobody cares because war is glorious and always necessary. I hope you like the outcome.

[wolvernova]

What Vietnam ought to have taught is that there are limits to what military force can accomplish when you're on the wrong side of history.

Sneaky Pete utterly does not get it.

:clap: :clap: VERY well said.

[rhet 2]

There will be no "taking them out" rather it will have the adverse consequence of "keeping them in." Maybe this is news to you, but the two-thirds of Iranians that are under the age of 30 really don't like their leaders, and in some cases even Islam. Foofing them would drive that crowd right into the arms of the Islamic revolutionaries. You're begging to create 50 million Ahmadinejads that we'll have to deal with over the next 30 years out of a generation of pro-western Iranians. That and the prospect of Iranian retaliation are not a good path to go down, but nobody cares because war is glorious and always necessary. I hope you like the outcome.

More Che Guevara PR fictions.

Could just be that "foofing" the leaders would gain us 50 million FREE Iranians happy to see Tehran flattened.

Or so say my Iranian students.

Mind you, they would rather their own families didn't get "foofed" in the process -- but, since there's also a strong likelihood that, sooner or later, their families are going to get "foofed" by the Iranian National Guard anyway, they're resigned to doing whatever has to be done to break out from under the mullahs and their religious goon squads.

Haven't paid much attention to the Iranian student association protests against US do-nothing-ism, have you?

LOTS AND LOTS of Muslims are even more frustrated over State Dept. weaseling than we are.

Because the longer we wait, the stronger the mullahs grow -- and the more non-radicalized Muslims die, right along with our own kids.

[TheFallGuy]

What Vietnam ought to have taught is that there are limits to what military force can accomplish when you're on the wrong side of history.

Sneaky Pete utterly does not get it.

No. What vietnam taught us was that even if we win militarily, pansy asses at home can lose everything for us. These same "peaceniks" who renig on their promises and spit on the troops.

Vietnam should have taught us to win the battle at home to ensure victory.

[wolvernova]

More Che Guevara PR fictions.

Could just be that "foofing" the leaders would gain us 50 million FREE Iranians happy to see Tehran flattened.

Or so say my Iranian students.

Mind you, they would rather their own families didn't get "foofed" in the process -- but, since there's also a strong likelihood that, sooner or later, their families are going to get "foofed" by the Iranian National Guard anyway, they're resigned to doing whatever has to be done to break out from under the mullahs and their religious goon squads.

Haven't paid much attention to the Iranian student association protests against US do-nothing-ism, have you?

LOTS AND LOTS of Muslims are even more frustrated over State Dept. weaseling than we are.

Because the longer we wait, the stronger the mullahs grow -- and the more non-radicalized Muslims die, right along with our own kids.

I pay plenty of attention to it. I don't think the mullahs grow stronger with time, quite the opposite rather. Their METHODS become more intense and drastic, but that is representative of their inability to control the new generation. I hope your Iranian students are right, because I can't recall any credible source that believes there's a better chance at removing this regime with force than without.