The Iran Thread

[OverMyHead]

as long as bush is in office, we're toast.

thank god, hillary will be our next president.

[Kritish]

We could always pull a Bill Clinton and bomb one of their power plants over night.

[The Evolutionist]

We successfully Invaded Iraq in less then a few days dude. Iran should lay off the nukes anyway.

Invaded? Yes. Other than that, all we've done is lose over 3,000 American and countless innocent Iraqi lives. And Iran won't have nukes until something like 2017, if they even develop them to begin with.

[terry78]

Number one, we need to stop underestimating countries none of us have ever been to and only read about. Could be a bluff, could not be. We don't know what the hell they have in the wings.

[Cаrter]

Let's just assassinate this guy.

[PhotoJones]

or we could do something cray and get the **** out of the middle east, and stay out of other culture's businesses.

but that's crazy talk.

[Eros]

Number one, we need to stop underestimating countries none of us have ever been to and only read about. Could be a bluff, could not be. We don't know what the hell they have in the wings.

We know its nowhere near the level America has.

[jaguarr]

We successfully Invaded Iraq in less then a few days dude.

That's a GROSS oversimplification and doesn't address the fact that nearly all of our troops are already deployed and have their hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan, making the available forces for taking on a full scale invasion of Iran, a country far more capable of defending themselves than Iraq or Afghanistan, severely under-staffed. Couple that with a massive recruitment problem, current overspending on the U.S. military budget, and a huge shortage of supplies and equipment and you've got the makings of a very messy situation were the U.S. to attempt to invade Iran.


Iran should lay off the nukes anyway.

Agreed.

jag

[StorminNorman]

The solution to the Iran problem is simple - and apart of it is already happening.

Iran relies on oil for their economy. The oil in Iran is a type that needs a certain type of machine to refine it. They have one - it is broken. The only people that make it are the U.S., England (I believe) and Japan. So Iran has to send out its oil, have it refined, and then sold. This means that oil prices have to be at a certain level in order for Iran's oil to be profitable.

Well a few weeks ago - Dick Cheney went to Saudi Arabia. Ever since then, we have seen a drop in oil prices. OPEC went to the Saudis and started to suggesting rising the prices - the Saudis refused it. This is putting a real pinch on Iran - and Venezuela too (which has the same type of oil and has the same problems).

The other way to confront Iran is to take all the world powers, make an agreement to not trade with Iran. Anyone who refuses this is also put on the embargo. This will destroy the already struggling Iranian economy, sparking civil unrest and (hopefully) revolution.

[Asteroid-Man]

People from Iran are such idiots, if they did that the U.S. and all of NATO and probably members of the EU would bomb them into the stone age.
Kritish you dumb ass you just classified 80,000,000 people! Including myself. Also the Iranians don't like the Islamic Regime man. they fricken hate it. They wont it to end but half of them don't want US involved cause it will just get worse (look at Iraq) the other half believe US will help. Personally I think the Iranians need to toughen up more and assassinate the Leaders in Iran so then they can take back their lives. millions of people died because of the stupid regime. Anyways Kritish, I love you man, and I apologize for what I said but be more careful next time bro.

[Honey Vibe]

The other way to confront Iran is to take all the world powers, make an agreement to not trade with Iran. Anyone who refuses this is also put on the embargo. This will destroy the already struggling Iranian economy, sparking civil unrest and (hopefully) revolution.
There are already UN sanctions against Iran, a move lead by the US. This has not sparked civil unrest, but rather national solidarity. As Khamenei has said, "The enemies of the Islamic republic [seek] to weaken the spirit of the Iranian nation ..., but they do not know that they are not facing a single person, but a nation."

Obviously, those in charge of American policy think in the adolescent shades you do.

[Kritish]

Kritish you dumb ass you just classified 80,000,000 people! Including myself. Also the Iranians don't like the Islamic Regime man. they fricken hate it. They wont it to end but half of them don't want US involved cause it will just get worse (look at Iraq) the other half believe US will help. Personally I think the Iranians need to toughen up more and assassinate the Leaders in Iran so then they can take back their lives. millions of people died because of the stupid regime. Anyways Kritish, I love you man, and I apologize for what I said but be more careful next time bro.

It isn't my fault that you live in a third world dictatorship.

[StorminNorman]

There are already UN sanctions against Iran, a move lead by the US. This has not sparked civil unrest, but rather national solidarity. As Khamenei has said, "The enemies of the Islamic republic [seek] to weaken the spirit of the Iranian nation ..., but they do not know that they are not facing a single person, but a nation."

Obviously, those in charge of American policy think in the adolescent shades you do.

The Sanctions aren't strong enough as they stand now. If the people are starving, and Iran is still investing billions in Nuclear projects - the people will rise up.

[Sun_Down]

We successfully Invaded Iraq in less then a few days dude. Iran should lay off the nukes anyway.

Yes, and what a smashing success it's been!

Seriously, this whole cowboy "Bring it on" attitude needs to go. We're pissing everyone off and we can't afford it. America is not invincible and we better start acting accordingly.

[hippie_hunter]

There are already UN sanctions against Iran, a move lead by the US. This has not sparked civil unrest, but rather national solidarity. As Khamenei has said, "The enemies of the Islamic republic [seek] to weaken the spirit of the Iranian nation ..., but they do not know that they are not facing a single person, but a nation."

Obviously, those in charge of American policy think in the adolescent shades you do.

Actually it is not creating national solidarity. The Iranian people are getting fed up with Ahmadinejad because of the controversies revolving the nuclear program and his Israel/Holocaust comments. It's why the opposition won elections a few months ago.

[Kritish]

I just doubt Iran has the balls to do it. Like I said, NATO and probably the EU would destory them. The UN hates nukes.

[GoldenAgeHero]

iran knows that if they touch us, we'll bomb them right back to the stone age. we dont need to send troops over there. we have approx. 3000 nukes. im pretty sure we can spare 3.

[StorminNorman]

I wonder how well Eisenhower's New Look Containment policy would work in todays world: using the threat of Nuke's alone to solve our problems.

[Eros]

iran knows that if they touch us, we'll bomb them right back to the stone age. we dont need to send troops over there. we have approx. 3000 nukes. im pretty sure we can spare 3.

Well we don't need ot start a Nuke Holocaust to prove a point. We just need to Invade them to, it they try anything.

[jaguarr]

Well we don't need ot start a Nuke Holocaust to prove a point. We just need to Invade them to, it they try anything.

We don't have the forces needed to invade Iran. Nearly all of our military resources, troops and dollars are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranians know this. So does North Korea. And Sun_Down is right; the cowboy attitude has destroyed America's foreign relations not just with countries we already had issues with but with many that we never had before. We need to graduate past "We'll kick your ass!" as a solution to everything; especially since we can't really kick everyone's ass anymore because we're over committed as it is.

jag

[Honey Vibe]

It isn't my fault that you live in a third world dictatorship.
I see banning in your future :dew::heart:

[Kritish]

We need to find oil alternatives so that we can ignore the middle east.

[Joker]

Well we don't need ot start a Nuke Holocaust to prove a point. We just need to Invade them to, it they try anything.

once again, we're already spread too thin as it is, and we've shown with Iraq and Afghanistan that we are not prepared to fight in countries like this. It's like Veitnam, we fight classically, and then they hit us and run with guerilla tactics and we have no idea how to respond...at the VERY least, we should get out of Afghanistan and Iraq before we even consider invading any other country

[Kritish]

I see banning in your future :dew::heart:

I was just stating the facts. Chill down sugar. :o

[Honey Vibe]

I was just stating the facts. Chill down sugar. :o
but I do :huh:

[StorminNorman]

We need to find oil alternatives so that we can ignore the middle east.

Even if we could find a doable oil alternative tomorrow - it would take a decade to get us off of oil.

[Kritish]

Even if we could find a doable oil alternative tomorrow - it would take a decade to get us off of oil.

Doesn't Israel have oil? If so, we should try to get as much as we can from them. At least they like us.

[Maxwell Smart]

The Sanctions aren't strong enough as they stand now. If the people are starving, and Iran is still investing billions in Nuclear projects - the people will rise up.

Yeah because we employed harsh sanctions like you advocate against Iraq and that totally worked there, they rose up and overthrew Saddam themselves. :rolleyes:

No, what happened was the people suffered and the government of Iraq just went along doing what it wanted. Over 500,000 Iraqis perished from conditions caused by the sanctions.

[hippie_hunter]

Israel is not an oil producing nation.

[Motown Marvel]

we should send an undercover agent to kick this guy in the balls, then run away giggling. we'll have these f**kers singing the star spangled banner by sunrise!

[Kritish]

Israel is not an oil producing nation.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

[Eros]

we should send an undercover agent to kick this guy in the balls, then run away giggling. we'll have these f**kers singing the star spangled banner by sunrise!


I kind of agree, send out secret US agents to take out Iranian officials. some of these " I want to be a super power" countries are really starting to develop an ego.They want to be in the Nuke Club so Badly, and yet thier people are dieing.

[Motown Marvel]

I kind of agree, send out secret US agents to asssinate Iranian officials. some of these " I want to be a super power" countries are really starting to develop an ego.They want to be in the Nuke Club so Badly, and yet thier people are dieing.

no no no....i really think we should just kick him in the balls. seriously, imagine the respect he'd lose. he'd be the laughing stock of the middle east. no one would let him run a country. all the iranians would just laugh at him, they'd be emboldened by his weakness, they'd totally be like "dude, f**k this guy, he got kicked int he balls, for muhammad's sake! i ain't following this f**ker! REVOLUTION!" and they'd over throw his ass.

[C.F. Kane]

The mullahs say that the program is in place for energy purposed only. So, I say that the U.S. should offer all the help they can give in developing Iran's energy program.

And then they should give them windmills, solar panels and directions to their own oil fields. :woot:

[C.F. Kane]

Doesn't Israel have oil? If so, we should try to get as much as we can from them. At least they like us.

The funny thing about the Holy Land of God's Chosen People:

A) It's surrounded by people who hate Jews
B) More than half of it is desert
C) It's the only country in the Middle East with no oil


Yeah, go fig.

[Asteroid-Man]

It isn't my fault that you live in a third world dictatorship.
I live in Canada. I was born in Canada. My 'rents escaped after the regime so my sisters could live in liberty. And then I was born in Canada

[ScottyBBadd]

We are so scared LOL, we can take Iran in a weeks time.

If that.

[blind_fury]

Take Iran in weeks?

Do you guys have an exit strategy this time? What are you going to do with 70 million pissed off Iranians?

[dpm07]

People need to relax. Nothing is going to happen. We're not going to invade Iran, and they aren't going to invade Iraq. There's probably going to be a continued war of proxy, and that's about it. The US and Iran are not going to go head to head. Both countries realize the ramifications as well as how undignified it would be in the eyes of the world. Both countries are just tough talking to preserve their graces.

Personally, the US and Iran should both show a bit more social eloquence and etiquette. That could go a long way to resolving issues.

[blind_fury]

Well Bush has another year in office so maybe he'll just leave Iran for the next president.

we can only pray. :csad:

[The Overlord]

The other way to confront Iran is to take all the world powers, make an agreement to not trade with Iran. Anyone who refuses this is also put on the embargo. This will destroy the already struggling Iranian economy, sparking civil unrest and (hopefully) revolution.

Not gonna work, China and Russia would ignore such an embargo and no one is going to stop trading with China, its too important to the international community.

[Ahura Mazda]

You know the whole problem with the middle east:

Was the US involvement in the 1970s led to the US/ France and Great Britain engineering to take the Shah out and put Khomeini in power thinking they would control him and then when they realised they could not, they built up Saddam, who was more of a tenuous leader before that, to work as a counter to the new islamic regime with what was a powerful military force at that time.

The whole sytem backfired on them and now is a complete mess.

My parents were forced to flee as well in a military plane and we also lost quite a bit financially. My grandfather was assasinated during the whole mess. What I say above is also not some uneducated thoughts from some uninformed source.

I am almost in favour of an invasion for the sole reason it would cause enough chaos to get those present in power out and maybe within the next 50 years some type of peace will be found. The one thing is an invasion will initially succeed but will lead to a guerilla type war which will last for years.

[blind_fury]

If a guerilla war in Iraq lasts 5 years expect a guerilla war in Iran to last at least 15.

[chamber-music]

Irans not going to do anything. Even if they had Nukes they would not use them because as soon as they did they would be nuked in return. The president is just trying to stand up to America to look like the big man.

[raybia]

We successfully Invaded Iraq in less then a few days dude. Iran should lay off the nukes anyway.

We don't have the troops to do that unless the draft comes back.

Guess who will be going? Hope you like Falafels.

[raybia]

Irans not going to do anything. Even if they had Nukes they would not use them because as soon as they did they would be nuked in return. The president is just trying to stand up to America to look like the big man.

Iran will do something if attacked. And its not with Nukes that they are threatening with but U.S. interest worldwide and one of the biggest of our interest is in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

[blind_fury]

We don't have the troops to do that unless the draft comes back.

Guess who will be going? Hope you like Falafels.

LOL! :up:

[enterthemadness]

Oh crap...it's time like this that I wish I didn't live on Earth.

[Ahura Mazda]

We don't have the troops to do that unless the draft comes back.

Guess who will be going? Hope you like Falafels.

Hey in Iran they do not eat Falafels, it is kebabs you are talking about :cmad: ;)

[raybia]

Hey in Iran they do not eat Falafels, it is kebabs you are talking about :cmad: ;)

My bad. :csad:


I love kebabs...and falafels! :cwink:

[Arkady Rossovich]

We are so scared LOL, we can take Iran in a weeks time.

Oh?You Americans said the same thing with Iraq.Will this be failure #3?

[Dwarf lord]

thank god, hillary will not be our next president.

There. Fixed.

[hippie_hunter]

You know the whole problem with the middle east:

Was the US involvement in the 1970s led to the US/ France and Great Britain engineering to take the Shah out and put Khomeini in power thinking they would control him and then when they realised they could not, they built up Saddam, who was more of a tenuous leader before that, to work as a counter to the new islamic regime with what was a powerful military force at that time.

The whole sytem backfired on them and now is a complete mess.

Actually, the United States and the Western powers supported the Shah and opposed Khomeini because the Shah opposed the Soviet Union and was very pro-West. We then opposed the Islamic regime in Iran because they stormed our embassy and violated our soverignty. Though to be fair, the Iranians hated us because we supported the Shah and created chaos to overthrow democratically elected government years ago, to put the Shah back in power, thus violating their soverignty.

[Kritish]

The funny thing about the Holy Land of God's Chosen People:

A) It's surrounded by people who hate Jews
B) More than half of it is desert
C) It's the only country in the Middle East with no oil


Yeah, go fig.

Yep, and the Orthodox Jews still think that they're better than all of us uncircumsiced philistines.

People need to relax. Nothing is going to happen. We're not going to invade Iran, and they aren't going to invade Iraq. There's probably going to be a continued war of proxy, and that's about it. The US and Iran are not going to go head to head. Both countries realize the ramifications as well as how undignified it would be in the eyes of the world. Both countries are just tough talking to preserve their graces.

Personally, the US and Iran should both show a bit more social eloquence and etiquette. That could go a long way to resolving issues.

Agreed. :up:

[hippie_hunter]

Oh?You Americans said the same thing with Iraq.Will this be failure #3?
Why is it that Jourmugand have to show up :csad:

[Kritish]

Why is it that Jourmugand have to show up :csad:

Jourmugand is sort of like herpes, he always shows up when you don't want him.

[The Dude]

eh. WWIII is bound to happen sooner or later. Hopefully later as WWIII=likely nuclear holocaust.

[Spider-Bite]

Constitutionally speaking aiding or participating in an attack on our soldiers is justifcation for war, but should we?

Is that a good enough reason for another large loss of life? Is that justifaction for invading Iran. I've been paying close attention, and I believe that Bush is planning to invade Iran before he leaves office, or at least attempt to push it and instigate so that it becomes inevitable even after he leaves. I seriously believe this.

There is all this talk that Bush is once again manipulating intelligence to get another war, but even if he isn't manipulating intelligence I still say no. Bush might be lying to us again, or he might not, but I dont' care either way. Eiether way it still is not a good enough reason to invade. How is that going to solve the problem? Does Bush think that the attacks on our troops are magically going to stop because we invade Iran?

And this whole new idea of "it's okay for troops in Iraq to cross over into Iran to apprehend anybody connected to insurgents" is nothing but a way to have his war. To go from connection to connection untill your finally at war with the whole country, or instigate retalliation from Iran to get support for a war.

And now in the media a debate is being waged on whether or not Bush has the authority to declare war on Iran without approval from congress.

I do not think that Iran supporting the insurgency in Iraq is a good reason for war. I do not think that Iran building nuclear weapons is a good enough reason for a full blown war, tearing down the government and rebuilding it either. The nuclear issue might eventually justify a quick airstrike on nuclear facilities, but not what we did with Iraq.

[mightiest_mortal]

by "proven" do you mean in the same way it was "proven" Iraq had Weapons of Mass destruction?

US is gonna start a war on them any way.

America is seriously gonna gets its ass kicked if it keeps up like this. Them ignoring the UN and acting like king of the world is causing its own Arm race, I wouldn't be suprised if some of the larger powers try to deal with America before it gets too late for everyone.

[Darth Elektra]

Well yes, but we dont have the man-power or money to wage a war with Iran.

So, there's no doubt in my mind that we shouldnt attack Iran.

[Matt]

not sure. It atleast warrants some bombings.

[ultimatefan]

There shouldn´t have been the war on Iraq in the first place. That´s what´s bringing all this insurgence. They should have focused on stabilizing Afghanistan and hunting down Osama, but Bush son had to overcome his Shakespearian issues with his dad...

[StorminNorman]

I agree with Matt. We do not have the troops to start sending in men to Iran - but we can do a lot of damage with bombing.

Though I think the better way to attack Iran is economically and forcing the people to rebel. Perhaps even sending in CIA people to spark the revolution.

[Gonking]

nop

[Addendum]

Nothing the government does surprises me.

[demento]

I think we should air-drop thousands of kittens and puppies dressed in little cowboy and Uncle Sam outfits into Tehran to show them that we're not all that bad.

[Chris B]

Like a few others have already said, Iran's military in the condition that Iraq's was back in 2003. They are capable of fighting back. Obviously the US would eventually prevai', but it would be after heavy casualties. And it wouldn't stop there. The insurgency in Iraq would pail in comparison to an insurgency in Iran. Plus, the Iranian people also have a nationalistic streak and they may join the fight as well, regardless of how they feel about their government. For all of this to happen, the draft would also have to be reinstated.

[mightiest_mortal]

it doesnt matter if Iran would stand a chance or not... If America attacks it without UN backing theyre putting themselves on a knife edge. As soon as any large enough power, such as Russia or China, made a stand against them EVERYONE would join them, the West and Middle East included.
America HAS to stop pissing everyone off.

[Addendum]

Air drop uncensored porn.

Instead of killing, they drop off several loads into a kleenex

[gap5ewl]

No because it's not true and it will eventually be shown to be false. I'm getting really worried now and pissed that this administration has not been impeached and charged for treason.

[Kritish]

Sadly I don't think we can afford it, if this is true I wouldn't mind seeing them get a bunker buster up their ass. If we can prove witout a doubt, I think we should pull a Bill Clinton and track down their plants and bomb them over night. I oppose the Iraq war because I think we should be working on the real war on terror. But if Iran is helping the insurgents in Iraq something needs to happen, but not a full blown war.

[blind_fury]

What if the weapons came from the black market? You can't attack the Iranian government for that.

[Kritish]

What if the weapons came from the black market? You can't attack the Iranian government for that.

That's why you find out where they came from.

[Mr Sparkle]

http://z.about.com/f/wiki/e/en/5/59/Afos.jpg

and Iran, Iran's so far away!

[blind_fury]

The idea that Iranians support the insurgency is false. The Iranians support the shi'ites not the insurgency.

[Kritish]

I think that the insurgents are getting them from the black market, but the CIA or NSA or whatever needs to look into it. I'm against us being in Iraq but we can't have people shooting down our helicopters obviously.

[blind_fury]

That's why you find out where they came from.

Even if you find out who sold them to the black market good luck proving that person intended for those weapons to end up in Iraq.

[Mr Sparkle]

yeah, everyone forget about the failing economy and the gazillion corruption scandals.

there's a bear in the woods! wolves at the door!!!

[Kritish]

Even if you find out who sold them to the black market good luck proving that person intended for those weapons to end up in Iraq.

People in the arms trade don't care who gets them or what they are going to be used for. Like I said, I doubt that the Iranian government is selling the weapons to the insurgents.

[CrypticOne]

I say yes. Take out all threats to the US before leaving. Then we won't have to worry about anymore things for awhile.

[Mr Sparkle]

except grammar. that will be a concern.

[Addendum]

I say yes. Take out all threats to the US before leaving. Then we won't have to worry about anymore things for awhile.

Iran is a threat to the States the same way Iraq was not.

[Superman]

IF it's proven? Iran has been in Iraq since day one. Us taking out Saddam was just what Iran wanted. They have been and still are helping the *****e kill the Sunni and our guys and they will continue to help kill our guys till we get out. Then Iran will take over Iraq and when that happens all hell is going to break loose. All thanks to Bush and his unneeded war.

In other words, All Bush has managed to do with his war is give Iraq to Iran on a silver platter.:whatever:

[CrypticOne]

IF it's proven? Iran has been in Iraq since day one. Us taking out Saddam was just what Iran wanted. They have been and still are helping the *****e kill the Sunni and our guys and they will continue to help kill our guys till we get out. Then Iran will take over Iraq and when that happens all hell is going to break loose. All thanks to Bush and his unneeded war.

In other words, All Bush has managed to do with his war is give Iraq to Iran on a silver platter.:whatever:

Yeah, I sense a World War coming.

[CConn]

It's been quite a while sense there was a World War.

[chamber-music]

it doesnt matter if Iran would stand a chance or not... If America attacks it without UN backing theyre putting themselves on a knife edge. As soon as any large enough power, such as Russia or China, made a stand against them EVERYONE would join them, the West and Middle East included.
America HAS to stop pissing everyone off.

:up:

[Mr Jide]

LMAO at Iran. They'd get nuked off the face of this planet.

[Matt]

You know, Iran isn't exactly the push over that Iraq and Afgahnistan were. They have a far more organized and unified country with a real army. They would put up a fight. They would lose, but they wouldn't go easy.

[SentinelMind]

Sometimes I worry about some of you "cowboys" in this thread. Yes, we can take on Iran one on one, but Iran will likely attack our allies in the Middle East (Iraq, Israel, etc). These allies have their own interest and are going to attack whoever regardless of what (look at the Lebanon-Israel fiasco early last year). With Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, all in an unsteady balance, a world war could break out any moment. So stop with this "LAAAAAAAAAAAWLLLLLLLLLL We'll BOOMMMMMMMMMBBB IRAN INTO STONEAGE! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!" you're typing in front comfort of bedroom.

[mightiest_mortal]

Iraq is a US ally?
The problem with WW3, is that unless for some crazy reason Russia or China side themselves with America, no one ele will. The US economy isn't even that great anymore, thered be no benefits siding with America. It would just make you a target if you did. Even if there was actually a really good reason, America crying wolf over the Iraq thing has lost any trust and respect it might have had with the populations in other countries. In countries like the UK it would be political suicide for any leaders to even think about joining a war with them again.
People in America don't seem to realise that NOONE else likes America. If there is a WW3, its very likely to be America vs Everyone.

[Antonello Blueberry]

USA will never nuke Iran.
You won't be able to steal their oil for a few years if you do it.
Invading Iran is an actual possibility, instead.

[yenaled]

The US wouldn't invade Iran even if Iran paraded their nukes around the country and then set one off in a test. The US military are drawn so thin they can't do anything to retaliate. Just look at North Korea - but I guess they don't have oil.

[C.F. Kane]

I dunno. It's likely we'll have a Democratic president after Bush's term is up, and the Democrats certainly don't want another war. I'm guessing the worst we'll do is all cowboy talk and scimitar-rattling. We'll be fine.

[Spiderine]

Just a lot of rhetoric between the two nations, Iran knows the US has a lot on its plate as it is, so its easy to talk a lot of s!@#. Also any country who feels threatened are going to puff up and pound on its chest even if it knows it doesnt have the capability. Despite problems in other countries these nations still recognize the fact that the US is still a world power.And like all world powers and great empires before us they have crumbled from within or were weakened to a point that they could not defend themselves. As long as they can keep these conflicts in Iraq and Afganistan, they know eventually they can divide and weaken us.

[Honey Vibe]

People need to relax. Nothing is going to happen. We're not going to invade Iran, and they aren't going to invade Iraq. There's probably going to be a continued war of proxy, and that's about it. The US and Iran are not going to go head to head. Both countries realize the ramifications as well as how undignified it would be in the eyes of the world. Both countries are just tough talking to preserve their graces.

Personally, the US and Iran should both show a bit more social eloquence and etiquette. That could go a long way to resolving issues.
The Iranian president stated that the Iranian nation wants to continue its nuclear activities in the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency's regulations and treaties. They want to make it clear that they are not a rogue force, but also not willing to subject themselves to a paranoid nation's [and it's President's] illogical defensive measures.

Iran definitely comes out ahead of us in "social grace", in this case.

[TheReverend]

Yes I do like to poop, but is that a crime?!:huh:

I ask you...

[Mr Jide]

You know, Iran isn't exactly the push over that Iraq and Afgahnistan were. They have a far more organized and unified country with a real army. They would put up a fight. They would lose, but they wouldn't go easy.

Maybe but the point is still the same. They're toast. *Goes off to eat pop tarts*

[PhotoJones]

the question is not how long does it take to dismantle their government.

the question is, how long will we be fighting insurgents.

at the end of the day, no war is worth it anymore.

[TheReverend]

um I think you guys need to read my comment up above.

[PhotoJones]

um I think you guys need to read my comment up above.

you like poop?

good for you.

[Tobiaswins]

War with Iran?? Bad Idea, let the U.N deal with them, we're having a hard enough time in Iraq. You think we're having a tough time with Islamic extreamists now? If we invaded Iran, things would get much, much worse.
Heck, we might even loose the support of the few countries left that still support us.

[Maxwell Smart]

If we invade Iran we'll be in trouble, plain and simple. Its going to completely ignite Iraq and cause us to see Vietnam levels of casualities there, I'm sure of that. The *****e community will go into a complete revolt and the Sunnis will in turn do the same and we'll be in the middle.

[Chris B]

I would say that we try to engage Iran diplomaticly, but if that doesn't work, then would support an air strike campaign.

[blind_fury]

Hmmm I seem to remember military intelligence claiming Iraq supported Al-Queda and had WMDs. Now they're saying the same crap about Iran.

Fool me once shame on you...

[Spiderine]

If there was anything to help unite the fueding shias and sunnis against America, it would be this.

[blind_fury]

War with Iran would unite half the world against the US.

[Spiderine]

Bush would still "Stay the course".

[R0rschach]

I saw yes.

I say lets kill them all. I mean what are they good for anyways? Right?

It's not like they have a playboy channel. Or play basketball. I bet those towelheads don't even know how to make a burger.

Jesus Christ...They don't even speak english for gods sake. :whatever:

And why would we allow them to mess with Iraq?..it's not like they live right next to it. Right? What gives them that right? Nothing I say.

Plus they are part of the axis of evil. I bet they have a phone hotline connection with hell. Calling Satan all the time asking him fort advice and stuff. Right?

Ohh and we should probably nuke them cause they ALSO want nukes.
Whats with these 3rd world countries these days wanting nukes?

I mean don't they know by now that if we wanted them to have nukes we would have sold them some? Retards...jesus christ!

I mean, have they done us any good..the nukes? I mean all we ever did was nuke Japan!

And it's not like we made more friends because we can nuke anyone we want. Right?

No I say bomb them before they get nukes because they'll probably nuke the sun and ruin the weather and stuff. Right?

Ok just my 2 cents...can I have my change back plz? THks. :woot:

[mightiest_mortal]

Well put :up:



...wait, were you being sarcastic?

[Honey Vibe]

Does email scam artistry justify war with Nigeria? :huh:

[Tobiaswins]

Heck No we shouldn't go to war with Iran. This would make our problems much much worse.

[hippie_hunter]

If it is proven that Iran is supporting the insurgency in Iraq, then yes, it is justified that we go to war with Iran. People who simply say no aren't looking at the fact that if Iran supplied the insurgencies in Iraq with weapons, support, etc., then they are accomplices in the murder of 3,000 of our soldiers. They deserve to be punished.

However, just because war with Iran is justfied does not mean that we should go to war with Iran. At the moment, we have our hands tied up in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan before we went into Iraq. If we do go to Iran, we should finish the job in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We should also take the time in trying to rebuild our forces to more effectively fight a guerrilla war and rebuild the damage caused by the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this moment, common sense says "No war with Iran."

[hippie_hunter]

War with Iran would unite half the world against the US.

If Iran was supporting the insurgency in Iraq and with the current nuclear crisis, half the world would not unite against us if we went to war with them.

The nations of the world will not express their dissapproval in a justified military operaion (Afghanistan), but they will against an unjustified war (Iraq). If it is true, that Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgency then it is a justified war because not only are they committing murder against 3,000 American troops, 130 British troops, and the small number of other soldiers from places like Romania and Denmark, they are also accomplices in the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

[Addendum]

You fail to forget that when it comes to the government, common sense is non-existent

[Spider-Bite]

If it is proven that Iran is supporting the insurgency in Iraq, then yes, it is justified that we go to war with Iran. People who simply say no aren't looking at the fact that if Iran supplied the insurgencies in Iraq with weapons, support, etc., then they are accomplices in the murder of 3,000 of our soldiers. They deserve to be punished.

However, just because war with Iran is justfied does not mean that we should go to war with Iran. At the moment, we have our hands tied up in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan before we went into Iraq. If we do go to Iran, we should finish the job in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We should also take the time in trying to rebuild our forces to more effectively fight a guerrilla war and rebuild the damage caused by the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this moment, common sense says "No war with Iran."


War should never be engaged for the sake of punishing somebody. Revenge wars are never, ever, ever justifiable, and that's the problem with right wingers in America and Iraq, Iran and the middle east. They think people need to be punished.

Wars also should not ever be fought at a time of conveinence. They should only be fought, because it's either fight back or die. They should be used as a last resort, because of what will happen, and not what did happen. We should not have waited untill we were done with Afghanistan to go to war with Iraq, because there was no reason to go to war with Iraq anyways.

And waiting for a war with Iran? why so they have more time to prepare? We should be proving our determination not to go to war with them ever, so they have nothing to prepare for and no reason to prepare. We need to start proving ourselves to the middle east that we are not barabric terrorists.

I really don't see how war at any time with Iran will solve anything.

[Spider-Bite]

If Iran was supporting the insurgency in Iraq and with the current nuclear crisis, half the world would not unite against us if we went to war with them.

The nations of the world will not express their dissapproval in a justified military operaion (Afghanistan), but they will against an unjustified war (Iraq). If it is true, that Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgency then it is a justified war because not only are they committing murder against 3,000 American troops, 130 British troops, and the small number of other soldiers from places like Romania and Denmark, they are also accomplices in the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

according to that logic it's justifiable to go to war with us. Afterall how many people did we kill by going to war with Iraq? How many soldiers? How many sh.ites? The sh.ites in Iran are only trying to help their fellow sh.ites in Iraq, just like those soldiers in Iraq are our fellow Americans.

How many muslims have we killed with economic sanctions or economic greed. They have the driving force of our economy, and we get all the goods and they get next to nothing in return. According to your logic, 9/11 was justified.

I personally believe acts of violence are almost never, ever, ever justified.

It's a war between the sh.ites and the sunnis and the only way it will stop is for them to learn from their mistake. Look at slavery in America. It took a civil war for America to learn how stupid racism is, and the middle east will have to learn the hard way just like we did, but America refuses to let them. We keep dragging it out and taking all of their oil.

[R0rschach]

Well put :up:



...wait, were you being sarcastic?

Well I could go ahead and be all serious about it but...I simply can't.
It's just not worth my time.
People who truly see things as they are, for what they are already know what this is all about.

[blind_fury]

If Iran was supporting the insurgency in Iraq and with the current nuclear crisis, half the world would not unite against us if we went to war with them.

The nations of the world will not express their dissapproval in a justified military operaion (Afghanistan), but they will against an unjustified war (Iraq). If it is true, that Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgency then it is a justified war because not only are they committing murder against 3,000 American troops, 130 British troops, and the small number of other soldiers from places like Romania and Denmark, they are also accomplices in the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

America lost a great deal of credibility with the international community because of false claims of WMDs in Iraq and of Al Queda connections. Now were making almost the exact same claims about Iran. Sorry but you can't lie to the world and expect them to believe you a couple of years later. The world doesn't trust US intelligence and I don't blame them. The Bush administration manipulated intel so they could invade Iraq.

And how much do you really think Iran is supporting the insurgency? They are Shi'ites and giving weapons to baathist and sunni's to kill shi'ites doesn't make sense. Of course saying Iran supports the sunni insurgency makes Iran the bad guys so that's the story the Bush Administration will go with even though it doesn't make sense. The US military needs someone to blame for their failures in Iraq so their blaming the Iranian government.

Ultimately it's bad foriegn policy to just invade any country that may have supplied weapons. Can you imagine the disaster it would've been if America invaded China for supporting the VietCong? We aren't winning in Iraq so why in the hell would we expand the war to Iran? That's just making a bad situation worse.

47% of Iraqis support attacks on coalition forces. That's 14 million people. Iran has a population of 70 million and most of them will resist a US invasion. Attacking Iran will be jumping out of the pan and into the fire. It would be stupid to attack them.

Get these chicken hawks out of the White House before they start WW3.

[blind_fury]

We're supposed to fighting the taliban but somehow we end up in Iraq. Now we are ready to fight Iran.

Bin Laden is laughing his ass off.

[Ahura Mazda]

This whole mess would not have been if the US had not made the mistakes they did in the 70s.

And an invasion of Iran is very possible as I do not think there is as much support for the current regime as many may think. But it would definitely be very costly.

I just hope whatever they do, they do not ruin some of the national monuments lacted in Iran which date back to the BC.

[hippie_hunter]

You fail to forget that when it comes to the government, common sense is non-existent

You got a good point there :csad:

[Addendum]

Which is why even though common-sense says "Hell naw", even though the administration's credibility was damaged with the Iraq war and rendered meaningless with Katrina, the admin will still go ahead and try to sell it to the people, and will more than likely pursue it anyway, in spite of virtually no support.

Which takes me back to my first post "Nothing the government does surprises me"

[Spiderine]

If Iran is accused of supporting and funding the shia militias, then they should have an idea of who is supporting the sunni insurgency.Its not just homegrown ya know. There are elements within other sunni nations as well that are supporting that insurgency because of a vital interest in seeing the sunnis return to power. The US aint releasing that info are they.

[Spider-Bite]

America lost a great deal of credibility with the international community because of false claims of WMDs in Iraq and of Al Queda connections. Now were making almost the exact same claims about Iran. Sorry but you can't lie to the world and expect them to believe you a couple of years later. The world doesn't trust US intelligence and I don't blame them. The Bush administration manipulated intel so they could invade Iraq.

And how much do you really think Iran is supporting the insurgency? They are Shi'ites and giving weapons to baathist and sunni's to kill shi'ites doesn't make sense. Of course saying Iran supports the sunni insurgency makes Iran the bad guys so that's the story the Bush Administration will go with even though it doesn't make sense. The US military needs someone to blame for their failures in Iraq so their blaming the Iranian government.

Ultimately it's bad foriegn policy to just invade any country that may have supplied weapons. Can you imagine the disaster it would've been if America invaded China for supporting the VietCong? We aren't winning in Iraq so why in the hell would we expand the war to Iran? That's just making a bad situation worse.

47% of Iraqis support attacks on coalition forces. That's 14 million people. Iran has a population of 70 million and most of them will resist a US invasion. Attacking Iran will be jumping out of the pan and into the fire. It would be stupid to attack them.

Get these chicken hawks out of the White House before they start WW3.


I agree with most of what you said, and most of what you say, but I have to point out that Bush claims Iran is helping the sh.ite militias and not the sunnis. According to many Iran wants the sh.ite dominated government to be in a strong position to crush the sunnis after we leave.

[Memphis Slim]

Constitutionally speaking aiding or participating in an attack on our soldiers is justifcation for war, but should we?

Is that a good enough reason for another large loss of life? Is that justifaction for invading Iran. I've been paying close attention, and I believe that Bush is planning to invade Iran before he leaves office, or at least attempt to push it and instigate so that it becomes inevitable even after he leaves. I seriously believe this.

There is all this talk that Bush is once again manipulating intelligence to get another war, but even if he isn't manipulating intelligence I still say no. Bush might be lying to us again, or he might not, but I dont' care either way. Eiether way it still is not a good enough reason to invade. How is that going to solve the problem? Does Bush think that the attacks on our troops are magically going to stop because we invade Iran?

And this whole new idea of "it's okay for troops in Iraq to cross over into Iran to apprehend anybody connected to insurgents" is nothing but a way to have his war. To go from connection to connection untill your finally at war with the whole country, or instigate retalliation from Iran to get support for a war.

And now in the media a debate is being waged on whether or not Bush has the authority to declare war on Iran without approval from congress.

I do not think that Iran supporting the insurgency in Iraq is a good reason for war. I do not think that Iran building nuclear weapons is a good enough reason for a full blown war, tearing down the government and rebuilding it either. The nuclear issue might eventually justify a quick airstrike on nuclear facilities, but not what we did with Iraq.


So let me get this straight.......if we find out that Iran is helping to kill our soldiers, we should do nothing?? :dry: We should say, "Please Mr. Iranian insurgent terrorist....stop killing our soldiers." :dry:

That's it?

You do know that an airstrike for any reason is a path to war...right?

[Caliber]

No it justifies nothing but fox news and the adminastration will say it does. They always like to find a better excuses.

[Hotwire]

We should have went into Iran in the first place. At this point, Iran could be pointing a nuke directly at us with their finger on the trigger and we wouldn't have the manpower to do anything about it. Of course Iran is helping the insurgents in Iraq, it's in their best interest. The more they can tie us up there, there more they can get away with in their own country. Besides, if we fail in Iraq, which is looking more and more likely, then Iran can just move in and take over.

[Memphis Slim]

No it justifies nothing but fox news and the adminastration will say it does. They always like to find a better excuses.


Oh no ya' don't......
Don't try to dodge the question.

"If there is undeniable evidence that Iranians are killing our men, what do you do"?????

[Hotwire]

"If there is undeniable evidence that Iranians are killing our men, what do you do"?????
You kill them back. But what troops do you use to get this done?? Where should we take them from? Iraq? A draft? Where do they come from?

[Spider-Bite]

So let me get this straight.......if we find out that Iran is helping to kill our soldiers, we should do nothing?? :dry: We should say, "Please Mr. Iranian insurgent terrorist....stop killing our soldiers." :dry:

That's it?

You do know that an airstrike for any reason is a path to war...right?


Doing something isn't a good idea if that something will make the situation worse. Do you realize how fast down the slipper slope to world war 3 we are running?

What will it solve to go to war with Iran? Do you think the number of dead American soldiers will go down or up if we go to war with Iran? You can't bring back the dead, but you can protect the living. War with Iraq made war with Iran a thousand times more likely. I knew it would since the beginning, and I am no prophet. War with Iran will only lead to another war, and another war and another war and so on. War leads to more war. A bunch of people with guns shooting people are not "peace keepers" as Bush likes to call them.

These wars in the middle east that we try to break up are nothing but revenge wars for people that were already killed. Now you want to do the exact same thing as the terrorists?

[Spider-Bite]

We should have went into Iran in the first place. At this point, Iran could be pointing a nuke directly at us with their finger on the trigger and we wouldn't have the manpower to do anything about it. Of course Iran is helping the insurgents in Iraq, it's in their best interest. The more they can tie us up there, there more they can get away with in their own country. Besides, if we fail in Iraq, which is looking more and more likely, then Iran can just move in and take over.


No what we should have done is the same thing we should be doing in Irq right now. Stay out of it.

We should have left Saddam Hussein to be a pain in Iran's ass.

[StorminNorman]

America lost a great deal of credibility with the international community because of false claims of Al Queda connections.

But that has till been proven. Iraq did have connections with Al Queda - they simply played no active role in 9/11.

[Spiderine]

My thing is it will only increase the very thing we went to war over in the first place, TERRORISM.

[Memphis Slim]

You kill them back. But what troops do you use to get this done?? Where should we take them from? Iraq? A draft? Where do they come from?


We might have to go to a draft.

But did you know that recruitment is up inspite of all this?

[StorminNorman]

My thing is it will only increase the very thing we went to war over in the first place, TERRORISM.

Middle East Terrorism is a product of Islamic Extremism. You take out the Militant Islamic Extremest states, you take out much of the support terrorist groups have.

[Memphis Slim]

Doing something isn't a good idea if that something will make the situation worse. Do you realize how fast down the slipper slope to world war 3 we are running?

What will it solve to go to war with Iran? Do you think the number of dead American soldiers will go down or up if we go to war with Iran? You can't bring back the dead, but you can protect the living. War with Iraq made war with Iran a thousand times more likely. I knew it would since the beginning, and I am no prophet. War with Iran will only lead to another war, and another war and another war and so on. War leads to more war. A bunch of people with guns shooting people are not "peace keepers" as Bush likes to call them.

These wars in the middle east that we try to break up are nothing but revenge wars for people that were already killed. Now you want to do the exact same thing as the terrorists?


War doesn't always lead to more war. Remember 1945? Sometimes war is necessary to bring peace. To deny a need for war is to deny a need to contain or confront evil. Police do it on a local level.

Personally, however, I believe we are already in WWIII. Islamic terror has struck on every part of this globe. They are at war with us, regardless of how we feel about this.

People like yourself are looking for that "easy button" http://www.adrants.com/images/easy_button.jpg

It just doesn't work that way. So, sadly it may cost more lives. Iwo Jima (one battle) cost us 20,000 American lives. Did you know that? By today's mentality that would be cause to quit. That would be an utter failure. But we won that battle at a heavy cost. But Americans were made of sterner stuff then. They understood the cost of not fighting at all. Thus, they willing made the sacrifice.

[Hotwire]

We might have to go to a draft.

But did you know that recruitment is up inspite of all this?
It never ceases to amaze me just how uniformed today's youth is. I'd love to know just how many of these new recruits know that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. And I'm quoting W. on that one.

[Hotwire]

War doesn't always lead to more war. Remember 1945? Sometimes war is necessary to bring peace. To deny a need for war is to deny a need to contain or confront evil. Police do it on a local level.

Personally, however, I believe we are already in WWIII. Islamic terror has struck on every part of this globe. They are at war with us, regardless of how we feel about this.

People like yourself are looking for that "easy button" http://www.adrants.com/images/easy_button.jpg

It just doesn't work that way. So, sadly it may cost more lives. Iwo Jima (one battle) cost us 20,000 American lives. Did you know that? By today's mentality that would be cause to quit. That would be an utter failure. But we won that battle at a heavy cost. But Americans were made of sterner stuff then. They understood the cost of not fighting at all. Thus, they willing made the sacrifice.
I hope you remember what it took to end that war.
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/250px-Nagasakibomb.jpg

[Spiderine]

Middle East Terrorism is a product of Islamic Extremism. You take out the Militant Islamic Extremest states, you take out much of the support terrorist groups have.
Of course that is the theory in all this, wiping out these hostile regimes and replacing them with free democracies who will ultimately align themselves with us in the war on terror and eliminating funding and camps for the jihadist. But, can these governments truly be trusted and can they sustain under the pessure of their own people. Many of these arab governments we already have relations with are funding and supporting certain terrorist groups to achieve their goals secretly. So the threat is never truly eliminated or really decreased for that matter.They all know where the US stands on the Isreali-Palestinian issues and dont agree with it. Of couse they say they support the US what else would they say, these governments dont want to risk losing power in their own nations so they straddle the fence not to upset thier people.So it can be argued either way

[Spiderine]

Not to mention we had puppets in Iraq and Iran,remember the shaw of Iran a firm ally of the US, he lost support and was overthrown because he supported the US which is why the middle east is so hostile. Its just an endless cycle and with out our continuing support with money and troops it will fail. Afganistan will constantly have rely on US funding and protection. How long will it be before it becomes a drain on our resources and public favor fall out. Better get those poppy plants rollin.

[Cosmic]

If it's proven Iran's helping the insurgency kill American troops, do we invade Iran?

If it's proven that Iran's helping the insurgency kill people, period (not just Americans!), then yes, America (and her allies) should respond (multilaterally).

Should the initial response come in the form of an invasion? No! But I believe that there are other ways by which we could hurt the radical Islamic fundamentalist regime, while helping those Iranians who are our friends and future allies.

[Asteroid-Man]

We should have went into Iran in the first place. At this point, Iran could be pointing a nuke directly at us with their finger on the trigger and we wouldn't have the manpower to do anything about it. Of course Iran is helping the insurgents in Iraq, it's in their best interest. The more they can tie us up there, there more they can get away with in their own country. Besides, if we fail in Iraq, which is looking more and more likely, then Iran can just move in and take over.
Ya but U.S has more weapons. So explain another point please

[Spider-Bite]

We might have to go to a draft.

But did you know that recruitment is up inspite of all this?

actually recruitment is down. so much in fact that the Army had to lower it's standards for acceptance.

[Spider-Bite]

Middle East Terrorism is a product of Islamic Extremism. You take out the Militant Islamic Extremest states, you take out much of the support terrorist groups have.


the middle east is at war with itself. they have been for a long time. The only way for it to stop is for them to learn from their mistakes. They have to learn what the consequences are for being so prejudice against people. We need to stop meddling and let them ahve their war. It's the only way they will learn, otherwise they will always blame us.

[Spider-Bite]

War doesn't always lead to more war. Remember 1945? Sometimes war is necessary to bring peace. To deny a need for war is to deny a need to contain or confront evil. Police do it on a local level.

Personally, however, I believe we are already in WWIII. Islamic terror has struck on every part of this globe. They are at war with us, regardless of how we feel about this.

People like yourself are looking for that "easy button" http://www.adrants.com/images/easy_button.jpg

It just doesn't work that way. So, sadly it may cost more lives. Iwo Jima (one battle) cost us 20,000 American lives. Did you know that? By today's mentality that would be cause to quit. That would be an utter failure. But we won that battle at a heavy cost. But Americans were made of sterner stuff then. They understood the cost of not fighting at all. Thus, they willing made the sacrifice.


World War 2 did not bring peace. How do you think we got in this situation with North Korea, Russia, and China?

[lordofthenerds]

Right now we should be trying to get out of Iraq, not exacerbating the problem by invading Iran.

[Ice-man]

there is absoluly no point in any of these wars, i garentee this will all end as soon as gw's presidancy ends.

which i hope is really soon, hes honestly ****in us all over, and i hope he chokes on his dinner, and drops dead.


make peace not war.

[blind_fury]

But that has till been proven. Iraq did have connections with Al Queda - they simply played no active role in 9/11.
Most of the middle east had "connections" to al-queda but oil wasn't up for grabs in those countries.

[Arkady Rossovich]

War with Iran would unite half the world against the US.

No,no,no.The whole world except Great Britain and Canada.I suppose the USA needs to be taught a lesson.

[blind_fury]

Middle East Terrorism is a product of Islamic Extremism. You take out the Militant Islamic Extremest states, you take out much of the support terrorist groups have.

How do you get muslim populations to become America friendly?

Brainwash them? Carpet bomb them?

47% of Iraqis support attacks on coalition forces. Maybe you guys should come up with a plan BEFORE you invade and attack muslim countries.

[Hotwire]

Whoops, double post.

[Hotwire]

Ya but U.S has more weapons. So explain another point please
Ture, and the last time we fought a war against more than one country at a time, we had to use one of these!

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/250px-Nagasakibomb.jpg
And one of the HUGE difference between then and now, is that now, A LOT MORE COUNTRIES HAVE ONE OF THESE TOO!

[Addendum]

But that has till been proven. Iraq did have connections with Al Queda - they simply played no active role in 9/11.

By connections, are you referring to the one meeting that took place in Sudan back in 1995, and the Iraqi representative, who is in custody and has been cooperating with investigators, said that after the meeting he "received word from his IIS chain-of-command that he should not see bin Ladin again."?

And that was from the Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

The only other times that Iraq had any contact with al-Qaeda were refusals by Iraq to meet with an Al-Qaeda agent.

[blind_fury]

After 9-11 the entire world supported us as we went into afghanistan.

Then we went into Iraq and the world did a collective "WTF?".

Now we expect the world to support an invasion of Iran? How clueless and arrogant can you be?

[Spiderine]

Its beginning to look like a broader plan with a greater scope for the middle east now. This is how others in the world are seeing it. Other leaders are starting to come out and criticize the US for it too. Russian pres Putin's comments are indicative of this hostile policy. They spend all this time talking diplomacy with the N. Koreans yet Iraq had to be dealt with right then. And now its like we'll try diplomacy with Iran but its inevitable the US will get them anyway no matter what,thats the messege being interpreted.

[StorminNorman]

By connections, are you referring to the one meeting that took place in Sudan back in 1995, and the Iraqi representative, who is in custody and has been cooperating with investigators, said that after the meeting he "received word from his IIS chain-of-command that he should not see bin Ladin again."?

And that was from the Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

The only other times that Iraq had any contact with al-Qaeda were refusals by Iraq to meet with an Al-Qaeda agent.

I am talking about the fact that Al Queada had training camps IN Iraq at the time of the invasion.

[blind_fury]

Iraq has alot more Al Queda operatives today than it did under Saddam.

Well done Bush. Your counter terrorism strategies continue to amaze us. :up:

[Maxwell Smart]

I am talking about the fact that Al Queada had training camps IN Iraq at the time of the invasion.

Yeah, in KURDISTAN. Which was not under the direct administration of the central government due to the no-flight zones.

[Eros]

They help kill american solider, we should alteast do something, not war, but something. Those damn Iran bastards will burn for this one day!

[Kritish]

I don't think we can do like Israel and bomb their plants. They've learned since then, they probably have dummy sites for that.

[Maxwell Smart]

They help kill american solider, we should alteast do something, not war, but something. Those damn Iran bastards will burn for this one day!

Sorry that your parents had to leave Iran, but it isn't the job of the United States military to fight the battles of Iranian-Americans. Somebody should send a memo to the people up in Dearborn about that too(you know, the ones who celebrated when Hussein was executed).

I know you didn't mention anything about your Iranian heritage, but I think its more than obvious where your hawk attitude on Middle Eastern foreign policy comes from.

That type of tit for tat mentality is not what we need when it comes to decision-making that affect matters of national security, IMO.

[Eros]

Sorry that your parents had to leave Iran, but it isn't the job of the United States military to fight the battles of Iranian-Americans. Somebody should send a memo to the people up in Dearborn about that too(you know, the ones who celebrated when Hussein was executed).

I know you didn't mention anything about your Iranian heritage, but I think its more than obvious where your hawk attitude on Middle Eastern foreign policy comes from.

That type of tit for tat mentality is not what we need when it comes to decision-making that affect matters of national security, IMO.


Im mostly black dude, but my grandmother was from the middleast I beleive. Im thinking straight, Iranians who helped kill american soldiers should be dealt with.

[Spider-Bite]

Im mostly black dude, but my grandmother was from the middleast I beleive. Im thinking straight, Iranians who helped kill american soldiers should be dealt with.


how do you know which Iranians were and weren't involved? And nobody has yet to answer the question as to what it will solve. How will it solve anything?

Not to mention it will only kill more Americans. So technically if Bush sends troops to Iran than wouldn't he be helping kill American troops at the same time? When he sent them to Iraq didn't he help kill American troops? And didn't every person that voted for Bush help Bush help kill American troops?

It's a never ending cycle of violence untill somebody finally chooses not to continue the cycle.

[Eros]

how do you know which Iranians were and weren't involved? And nobody has yet to answer the question as to what it will solve. How will it solve anything?

Not to mention it will only kill more Americans. So technically if Bush sends troops to Iran than wouldn't he be helping kill American troops at the same time? When he sent them to Iraq didn't he help kill American troops? And didn't every person that voted for Bush help Bush help kill American troops?

It's a never ending cycle of violence untill somebody finally chooses not to continue the cycle.


The goverment has proof, not to mention the Iranian president side stepping a question on the issue. I watch Foxnews, and The Iran president looks like alittle punk.

[Venom'sDad]

To answer SpiderBite question, at this point yes. Whether one agree or not, at this point, the only acceptable answer is to win and not let those soldiers that came before and died, die in vain. That was the lesson learned in Vietnam by the veterans of that war. America abandon those soldiers and others loss their lives in vain, after America chose to fight the war…. again, whether you agree with it or not, our so-called leaders chose to fight that war and this current war. This country chose this war, so at this point, it must be won.

With that said, I think many of you are really missing the larger picture in play. I understand everyone has their own opinions, see things differently, and is taking sides… I’m no different. However, with most of the people, taking a hard-line on the issue at hand and the country appear to be split many ways; everyone appear to be missing the big picture, that more is going on than what the eye can see. I underline appear, because the Leaders are more unified than you think and not for the obvious reason that most people in this country, most people all over the world, and most of those on these boards… think. It’s not that “we the people” don’t completely know, it’s more of our own ignorance and lack of understanding, apathy, and the fact we choose to ignore certain aspects of the truth because it’s simply easier that way, to give credence to one’s own agenda or opinion. :dry:

[blind_fury]

So how many troops have to "die in vain" before we get out of Iraq?

500?

1,000?

5,000?

[Eros]

So how many troops have to "die in vain" before we get out of Iraq?

500?

1,000?

5,000?

Lets not go over board here, this isn't Vietnam we are talking about.

[blind_fury]

Well if we invade Iran to protect our interest in Iraq it will be Vietnam.

[Maxwell Smart]

To answer SpiderBite question, at this point yes. Whether one agree or not, at this point, the only acceptable answer is to win and not let those soldiers that came before and died, die in vain. That was the lesson learned in Vietnam by the veterans of that war. America abandon those soldiers and others loss their lives in vain, after America chose to fight the war…. again, whether you agree with it or not, our so-called leaders chose to fight that war and this current war. This country chose this war, so at this point, it must be won.

It can't be won. We don't have a war TO win, thats what people of like you can't(or won't) recognise. Its a civil war. How can we win someone else's civil war? Like I said, we can't. THAT was the lesson from Vietnam which obviously you did not learn.

Your reasoning is just flat out stupid. We should accept the deaths of more American troops to somehow justify the deathes of the ones we've already lost? No thanks, bud. The lives of our American soldiers who aren't dead are more important to me than whether or not the others died "in vain". Talk about biting your own nose off to spite your face. :down:

I subscribe to Ving Rhames' line of thought from Pulp Fiction, "pride? **** pride".

[Venom'sDad]

Again, whether you support it or not, America is at war... and in war, people die. Don't be naive.

[Maxwell Smart]

Lets not go over board here, this isn't Vietnam we are talking about.

Wake up. Thanks to Bush's presence in the Oval office we've got 2 more years there, and considering the trend of casualties increasing there, we're easily going to lose another 2,000 troops in this war. And thats not even considering the possibility of conflict with Iran, which would most likely escalate the conflict in Iran and cause us to incur Vietnam-level casualties there.

[Maxwell Smart]

Again, whether you support it or not, America is at war... and in war, people die. Don't be naive.

America isn't at war, the Sunnis and *****es in Iraq are at war and we are in the middle.

Your reasoning is oversimplistic bull****. People die in wars, we are at war, therefore the American people shouldn't be outraged that their brave young men and women are dying everyday in Iraq. Hey man guess what? We DO have a right to be outraged when its an unnecessary and geopolitically counterproductive conflict.

*EDIT* Sorry I cussed at you but for you to sit there and try to tell me the lives of our American soldiers are less important than trying to save face in Iraq makes my blood boil.

[Venom'sDad]

You are showing your ignorance and is totally ignoring, like I said, the truth for your own agenda or opinion. Read the whole post, and stop hiding behind ignorance with your colorful expressions.

[blind_fury]

lolz!

[Maxwell Smart]

You are showing your ignorance and is totally ignoring, like I said, the truth for your own agenda or opinion. Read the whole post, and stop hiding behind ignorance with your colorful expressions.

What truth? All you did was basically tell me I'm naive for being displeased with the casualties we've had(and continue to have) in Iraq. Bring up a real ****ing point and I'll respond. Kthnxbye

[ScottyBBadd]

Well if we invade Iran to protect our interest in Iraq it will be Vietnam.

How?

[Spider-Bite]

For those of you who support war with Iran I say this. You say you are angry at Iran for the death of our troops. If you are angry over the deaths of our troops than why would you want to send even more troops in harm's way? doesn't that defeat the purpose?

And shouldn't you be angry at republicans for wanting to send them in harm's way?

You say we want to stand by and do nothing, but that is not true. We want to do something and that something is learn from mistakes made. We sent troops in harm's way and thousands died and it only made the situation worse. We don't want the same mistake to be made again. If your angry at Iran for the deaths of our troops, and you feel for those troops and you want to protect those troops, then you have a moral obligation to oppose another war. Oppose it for the sake of the lives of our remaining forces. Do it to support the troops. Their lives are not worthless. Just because they took an oath to defend America does not make them dispensibable. yes they chose to take a risk, but they are also trusting us voters with their lives. They are out there in the hot desert surrounded by people who don't even speak english, while we play chess with their lives in the comfort of our own homes with our families.

[Ahura Mazda]

Not to mention we had puppets in Iraq and Iran,remember the shaw of Iran a firm ally of the US, he lost support and was overthrown because he supported the US which is why the middle east is so hostile. Its just an endless cycle and with out our continuing support with money and troops it will fail. Afganistan will constantly have rely on US funding and protection. How long will it be before it becomes a drain on our resources and public favor fall out. Better get those poppy plants rollin.

If you want to know, The Shah lost the support of the US, and the revolution was instigated by the occident who thought they could use Khomeini as a figurehead ruler they could control.

The bastard played everybody and once he was in power he made it impossible for the Occident.

The middle east is hostile is a generality which is very ineaxact. the majority of the middle east are allies of the US including Saudi Arabia.

Iran is a country in which the chaos was caused by the US government under Carter.

Know the facts.....

[Memphis Slim]

World War 2 did not bring peace. How do you think we got in this situation with North Korea, Russia, and China?


It did bring peace time. What are you talking about???

[Memphis Slim]

I hope you remember what it took to end that war.
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/250px-Nagasakibomb.jpg



Yep.......one massive aggressive move. Sometimes that's what it takes.
I don't see that happening today, though.

[Ahura Mazda]

It did bring peace time. What are you talking about???

I think he is talking about the Cold War.

[Spiderine]

If you want to know, The Shah lost the support of the US, and the revolution was instigated by the occident who thought they could use Khomeini as a figurehead ruler they could control.

The bastard played everybody and once he was in power he made it impossible for the Occident.

The middle east is hostile is a generality which is very ineaxact. the majority of the middle east are allies of the US including Saudi Arabia.

Iran is a country in which the chaos was caused by the US government under Carter.

Know the facts.....
No, the shaw of Iran lost support of the US because he could not get firm control of the mounting situation in Iran. The shaw was trying to pro westernize the country and was seen as a puppet of the west. Opposition began to grow against him for this. The Carter admin. had promised to support him no matter what, we know how that turned out. As for the Saudis,yes, they are allies and I use that term loosely. The Saudis have for the most part supported the US because they have always had a unique relationship especially more so under King Faud who died years ago. The current prince Abdullah is more a supporter of Arab and Muslim causes in the region. Relations between him and the Bush admin have become increasingly strained in recent years. Obviously they down play the situation but and on the urface they make necessary concessions for the US which is what you see on the surface but things are much bigger than they seem. They are starkly divided on many situations and dont see EYE TO EYE. He even sent a letter to Bush stating he will not allow himself to be seen like the shaw of Iran nor allow the same fate. So on paper ,great ally, in essence keep your enemies tight and keep your friends tighter. He stated he will NOT ignore the voice of his people.

[Memphis Slim]

I think he is talking about the Cold War.


Oh please.......That was purely a polical struggle. The physical conflict brought peace time. Soldiers came back home.

[Angry Sentinel]

Hey Memphis, just pull out man, just do like the troops in Vietnam and PULL OUT!

[Ahura Mazda]

No, the shaw of Iran lost support of the US because he could not get firm control of the mounting situation in Iran. The shaw was trying to pro westernize the country and was seen as a puppet of the west. Opposition began to grow against him for this. The Carter admin. had promised to support him no matter what, we know how that turned out. As for the Saudis,yes, they are allies and I use that term loosely. The Saudis have for the most part supported the US because they have always had a unique relationship especially more so under King Faud who died years ago. The current prince Abdullah is more a supporter of Arab and Muslim causes in the region. Relations between him and the Bush admin have become increasingly strained in recent years. Obviously they down play the situation but and on the urface they make necessary concessions for the US which is what you see on the surface but things are much bigger than they seem. They are starkly divided on many situations and dont see EYE TO EYE. He even sent a letter to Bush stating he will not allow himself to be seen like the shaw of Iran nor allow the same fate. So on paper ,great ally, in essence keep your enemies tight and keep your friends tighter. He stated he will NOT ignore the voice of his people.


Actually the Shah lost the support of the US following the oil crisis and the CIA were instructed to longer help him.

Khomeini had been welcomed in France and was given a castle to live in.

The European and American press marketed the Shah as a cruel dictator and Khomeini as a potential savior.

Administrators under Carter made official statements suggesting that the US would have an easier time if iran was under a religious regime.

This is just a little sum of things that led to a revolution which occurred in the summer of 78. The opposition against the Shah was very light until then when all of a sudden the Shah was all over the newspapers as a cruel dictator, news that was published in Europe and the States.

The information which is public hides quite a bit which is not. My family was involved in the regime of the Shah and the insider track does not make the Carter's US an innocent bystander but more an active participant.

The whole policy backfired on them.

The one thing is the Shah decided in the 70s to no longer be just a puppet and that caused all the rest.

Regarding your other comments, I would have to agree but they still remain an ally.

[Hotwire]

Yep.......one massive aggressive move. Sometimes that's what it takes.
I don't see that happening today, though.

Did you even think before you made that comment?? Do you have ANY FRIGGIN' CLUE what kind of repercussions dropping a nuke in that part of the world would have???? You think American were pissed about paying $3.00/gal for gas, you nuke that part of the world, and we won't even be ABLE to buy gas. We do not have enough stockpiled in reserves to destroy our main source of oil. War is not something to be taken lightly, it should not be entered into without first trying diplomacy until all avenues are exhausted. Turn your brain on.

[Spider-Bite]

No evidence that Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17129144/

[hippie_hunter]

For those of you who support war with Iran I say this. You say you are angry at Iran for the death of our troops. If you are angry over the deaths of our troops than why would you want to send even more troops in harm's way? doesn't that defeat the purpose?

And shouldn't you be angry at republicans for wanting to send them in harm's way?

You say we want to stand by and do nothing, but that is not true. We want to do something and that something is learn from mistakes made. We sent troops in harm's way and thousands died and it only made the situation worse. We don't want the same mistake to be made again. If your angry at Iran for the deaths of our troops, and you feel for those troops and you want to protect those troops, then you have a moral obligation to oppose another war. Oppose it for the sake of the lives of our remaining forces. Do it to support the troops. Their lives are not worthless. Just because they took an oath to defend America does not make them dispensibable. yes they chose to take a risk, but they are also trusting us voters with their lives. They are out there in the hot desert surrounded by people who don't even speak english, while we play chess with their lives in the comfort of our own homes with our families.

Don't turn this into a partisan "Republicans suck" issue. The Democrats are equally guity by helping George Bush authorize this war. The Democrats had a sizeable miniority to oppose Bush's invasion, yet they allowed it.

And if Iran is guilty, then yes, the anger deserves to be put on them. If this is true, then the Iranians helped the insurgency cause chaos in Iraq.

[sinewave]

But did you know that recruitment is up inspite of all this?

this is why no one takes you seriously. the only reason the military keeps meeting it's goals is because they keep lowering them so they can claim that recruitment levels are fine and people like yourself who believe everything that this administration tells them will follow along like the loyal, ignorant sheep that you are.

I am talking about the fact that Al Queada had training camps IN Iraq at the time of the invasion.

you gotta provide a link for that because i'm calling b.s. that was another lie by the bush administration.

[Spider-Bite]

Don't turn this into a partisan "Republicans suck" issue. The Democrats are equally guity by helping George Bush authorize this war. The Democrats had a sizeable miniority to oppose Bush's invasion, yet they allowed it.

And if Iran is guilty, then yes, the anger deserves to be put on them. If this is true, then the Iranians helped the insurgency cause chaos in Iraq.


The majority of democrats voted against authorization. The big names, the ones who planned on seeking the presidency later down the road voted for authorization as an effort to appeal to swing voters and moderate republicans. Bush worked the country into a frenzy and used scare tactics to pressure them into being what they call "patriotic." This is not counting Al Gore, Howard Dean, and Barack Obama of course. They all vocally opposed it.

The democrat's hard core liberal base voters opposed the Iraq war before it even began. Unfortantely we only make up like 25% of the country.

If it wasn't for swing voters and republican voters the Iraq war would not have happened. However the majority of the blame utlimately falls on Bush. The authorization did give Bush the ability to pressure Saddam into allowing weapons inspectors in. Once that happened and no real evidence was found, Bush should not have went ahead with the invasion.

I have to say that Collin Powell is exempt from this though, as he was secretly trying very hard to get Bush not to invade.

And I have to point out that it's possible Iran is behind a very small percentage of the attacks, and not the majority, and even that is unproven.

[hippie_hunter]

The majority of democrats voted against authorization.
O Rly? The 107th Congress from June 6, 2001 to October 25, 2002 had a Democratic majority with 50 Senators alligned with the Democratic Party and one independent who caucused with them. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Against Iraq was passed on October 16, 2002. A Congress that had a Democratic majority. A Congress where 30 Democrats voted to approve the Iraq War. Last time I checked 30 out of 50 is a majority of Democrats. Don't just solely blame the Republicans on this, the Democrats played their part too.

I have to say that Collin Powell is exempt from this though, as he was secretly trying very hard to get Bush not to invade.
I'd like Colin Powel to return to government if a moderate Republican like Giuilani is elected President.

[Spider-Bite]

O Rly? The 107th Congress from June 6, 2001 to October 25, 2002 had a Democratic majority with 50 Senators alligned with the Democratic Party and one independent who caucused with them. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Against Iraq was passed on October 16, 2002. A Congress that had a Democratic majority. A Congress where 30 Democrats voted to approve the Iraq War. Last time I checked 30 out of 50 is a majority of Democrats. Don't just solely blame the Republicans on this, the Democrats played their part too.


yes but 50 is not a majority, it's half of the senate, and not including the house. the majorioty of democratic leaders voted against it. Not all democrats, just the majority. Kind of like how the majority of republicans are opposed to embryonic stem cell research, but enough of them and enough of democrats passed the federal funding for it, even though Bush vetoed it.


I'd like Colin Powel to return to government if a moderate Republican like Giuilani is elected President.


I actually can't think of anybody I'd prefer for secretary of state over Collin Powell. And I'm not terrified of Giulliani as president. I don't believe he would behave like a dictator and with democrats in control of the house, Rudy wouldn't have the power to run an economy for the rich, becasue they wont renew tax cuts for the rich. He also wouldn't have the ability to wage any unjustified wars. I like him on a lot of issues, and if I had to pick which republican would win the nomination it would be Rudy. I used to admire John McCain but honestly he lost any support from me about a year ago, even though I think his fail safe plan for Iraq should be put into effect as of yesterday. I'm talking about what he said we should do 5 years from now, if staying the course still hasn't returned any results. Basically instead of trying to stop the violence, we keep it contained in Iraq but let em go at it. I've been saying that for a year, because I don't want the civil war spreading throughout the entire middle east blowing up all of the oil and cutting off supplies, and dragging the U.S. through World War 3, which I believe would cause the end of the world.

[hippie_hunter]

yes but 50 is not a majority, it's half of the senate, and not including the house. the majorioty of democratic leaders voted against it. Not all democrats, just the majority.
30 out of 50 Democrats is the majority of Democrats. Not only that the leadership of the Democrats voted for it too. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Lieberman were prominent Democrats who voted for it. The Democrats had the ability to prevent Bush from going to Iraq, but instead they allowed him. If you want to blame the Republicans, you also have to blame the Democrats.

Kind of like how the majority of republicans are opposed to embryonic stem cell research, but enough of them and enough of democrats passed the federal funding for it, even though Bush vetoed it.
The difference is that the Republicans aren't the majority party. So the majority of Republicans aren't going to be able to prevent certain legislation pass because of it. Facts are facts, the Democrats had the majority in Congress when Congress authorized the Iraq War and the majority of Democrats (30 out of 50) helped Bush go to war. Instead of playing the blame game, how about we find a way to fix this mess in Iraq.

I actually can't think of anybody I'd prefer for secretary of state over Collin Powell. And I'm not terrified of Giulliani as president. I don't believe he would behave like a dictator and with democrats in control of the house, Rudy wouldn't have the power to run an economy for the rich, becasue they wont renew tax cuts for the rich. He also wouldn't have the ability to wage any unjustified wars. I like him on a lot of issues, and if I had to pick which republican would win the nomination it would be Rudy.
Rudy is the future of the Republican Party. The neo-cons were dealt a severe blow in 2006 and the Republican leadership needs to realise that the neo-con/Reagan Era is over and move on towards the future.

[Spider-Bite]

30 out of 50 Democrats is the majority of Democrats. Not only that the leadership of the Democrats voted for it too. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Lieberman were prominent Democrats who voted for it. The Democrats had the ability to prevent Bush from going to Iraq, but instead they allowed him. If you want to blame the Republicans, you also have to blame the Democrats.



I blame some democrats and i blame them less. they were lied to. and even if they voted against it, they'd have been replaced by the voters for somebody else who would have voted for it anyways. In the end the result would have been the same.
The difference is that the Republicans aren't the majority party.
they were at the time it was passed. Bush vetoed it. democrats have been in power for a month. this was like 8 months ago. With all of the democrats voting for it, and just a small number of republicans it passed.

So the majority of Republicans aren't going to be able to prevent certain legislation pass because of it. Facts are facts, the Democrats had the majority in Congress when Congress authorized the Iraq War and the majority of Democrats (30 out of 50) helped Bush go to war. Instead of playing the blame game, how about we find a way to fix this mess in Iraq.


Rudy is the future of the Republican Party. The neo-cons were dealt a severe blow in 2006 and the Republican leadership needs to realise that the neo-con/Reagan Era is over and move on towards the future.
[/QUOTE]


Just weeks ago the republicans in the senate stalled the minimum wage bill untill they got tax cuts for small businesses to go along with it.

I agree about the future of the republican party. It's a natural progression for the whole country for both parties. As old generations die off, newer more progressive generations replace them. In 20 years even most republicans will support gay marriage. However Rudy Giulliani supports partial birth abortions and I doubt that's the direction republicans will go. I personally hope democrats will move to the right on that issue in the future.

[VenomsMom]

Yep.......one massive aggressive move. Sometimes that's what it takes.
I don't see that happening today, though.
Is this what you want?

[Venom'sDad]

They were not lied to, that's a myth that most people wants to believe.

[hippie_hunter]

I blame some democrats and i blame them less. they were lied to. and even if they voted against it, they'd have been replaced by the voters for somebody else who would have voted for it anyways. In the end the result would have been the same.
I agree that the Republicans deserve more blame, but Ithink that playing the blame game is just pointless. They should focus on a solution instead.

Just weeks ago the republicans in the senate stalled the minimum wage bill untill they got tax cuts for small businesses to go along with it.
There were even the Senate Democrats. The tax cuts for small businesses was actually a good idea from Bush to help stem the affects of the increase in minimum wage.

The Senate Democrats that voted to stall the minimum wage bill knew that the House Democrats were just playing politics by trying to get Bush to veto it and Harry Reid even said that there needed to be tax cuts for small businesses. That is why they held the vote, to show them that the tax cuts were needed.

The bill that the Senate passed is the best solution. It provides a way to stem the effects on small businesses that can't afford minimum wage, yet it raises it for those that really need it.

I agree about the future of the republican party. It's a natural progression for the whole country for both parties. As old generations die off, newer more progressive generations replace them. In 20 years even most republicans will support gay marriage. However Rudy Giulliani supports partial birth abortions and I doubt that's the direction republicans will go. I personally hope democrats will move to the right on that issue in the future.
Personally, I think they should just keep the abortion laws the way they are right now. Some restrictions, but not a complete ban and no free-abortions for all.

[VenomsMom]

There are dangerous minds in the world that can tip the balance of peace.

[Deleted User]

No,no,no.The whole world except Great Britain and Canada.I suppose the USA needs to be taught a lesson.

Why exactly do we need to be taught a lesson? And you do know that if any coalition of forces attacked the USA, that would end up with half the world being torn apart by nuclear holocaust? I'm guessing you're implying that this is the way we should be "taught".

You know what, you're an amusing fellow. Just the posterboy for anti-American sentiment, aren't you? If anyone takes the prize, it is you.

[hippie_hunter]

Why exactly do we need to be taught a lesson? And you do know that if any coalition of forces attacked the USA, that would end up with half the world being torn apart by nuclear holocaust? I'm guessing you're implying that this is the way we should be "taught".

You know what, you're an amusing fellow. Just the posterboy for anti-American sentiment, aren't you? If anyone takes the prize, it is you.

Jourmugand is an idiot. He actually beleives that the United States will take over all of North America, annex Canada as a state and use Mexico as a weapons testing ground. He usually has nothing better to say than statements that sum up to basically "I hate America."

[Deleted User]

Jourmugand is an idiot. He actually beleives that the United States will take over all of North America, annex Canada as a state and use Mexico as a weapons testing ground. He usually has nothing better to say than statements that sum up to basically "I hate America."

I can imagine that every day that he wakes up and gets out his big box of Corn Flakes only to find out that he is out of milk he shouts, "Curse you America, I know you're behind this!!!!! You're not fooling anyooooonnee!!!"

[Addendum]

Then his moms tells him to put some water on that damn **** instead of throwing it away

[Deleted User]

But he throws it away anyways, because of America's plot to poison his cereal. :(

[Rated-X]

To answer SpiderBite question, at this point yes. Whether one agree or not, at this point, the only acceptable answer is to win and not let those soldiers that came before and died, die in vain. That was the lesson learned in Vietnam by the veterans of that war. America abandon those soldiers and others loss their lives in vain, after America chose to fight the war…. again, whether you agree with it or not, our so-called leaders chose to fight that war and this current war. This country chose this war, so at this point, it must be won.

With that said, I think many of you are really missing the larger picture in play. I understand everyone has their own opinions, see things differently, and is taking sides… I’m no different. However, with most of the people, taking a hard-line on the issue at hand and the country appear to be split many ways; everyone appear to be missing the big picture, that more is going on than what the eye can see. I underline appear, because the Leaders are more unified than you think and not for the obvious reason that most people in this country, most people all over the world, and most of those on these boards… think. It’s not that “we the people” don’t completely know, it’s more of our own ignorance and lack of understanding, apathy, and the fact we choose to ignore certain aspects of the truth because it’s simply easier that way, to give credence to one’s own agenda or opinion. :dry:

Couldn't have said it better. :up:

[Spider-Bite]

There were even the Senate Democrats. The tax cuts for small businesses was actually a good idea from Bush to help stem the affects of the increase in minimum wage.

The Senate Democrats that voted to stall the minimum wage bill knew that the House Democrats were just playing politics by trying to get Bush to veto it and Harry Reid even said that there needed to be tax cuts for small businesses. That is why they held the vote, to show them that the tax cuts were needed.

The bill that the Senate passed is the best solution. It provides a way to stem the effects on small businesses that can't afford minimum wage, yet it raises it for those that really need it.




I agree on the tax cuts for the small businesses, however I think they should only be temprorary. Higher wages means higher consumer spending, and gradually after a few years the small businesses' profit range would be right back to where it was prior to the wage hike. I'm one of those who believes that changes to the economy should always try to be implemented gradually, to avoid shocking it. I tend to think of the economy as water in a glass. It finds it shape and molds to the environment.

[Spider-Bite]

Originally Posted by Venom'sDad http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11181781#post11181781)
To answer SpiderBite question, at this point yes. Whether one agree or not, at this point, the only acceptable answer is to win and not let those soldiers that came before and died, die in vain. That was the lesson learned in Vietnam by the veterans of that war. America abandon those soldiers and others loss their lives in vain, after America chose to fight the war…. again, whether you agree with it or not, our so-called leaders chose to fight that war and this current war. This country chose this war, so at this point, it must be won.



It sounds like you want even more soliders to die in vain, and then you'll turn around and call it something else. War is a ridiculous waste of resources, manpower, and human life.

With that said, I think many of you are really missing the larger picture in play. I understand everyone has their own opinions, see things differently, and is taking sides… I’m no different. However, with most of the people, taking a hard-line on the issue at hand and the country appear to be split many ways; everyone appear to be missing the big picture, that more is going on than what the eye can see. I underline appear, because the Leaders are more unified than you think and not for the obvious reason that most people in this country, most people all over the world, and most of those on these boards… think. It’s not that “we the people” don’t completely know, it’s more of our own ignorance and lack of understanding, apathy, and the fact we choose to ignore certain aspects of the truth because it’s simply easier that way, to give credence to one’s own agenda or opinion.

lots of babbling, and not a single point. Seriously, you didn't make one point in all of that. Our leaders are more unified than we think? Bigger things than we know?
Prove a point. You talk about truth and understanding? What truth? You should at least say that. You sound like a politician using talking points to dodge issues. Kind of like how democrats told us about all this change for Iraq but never told us what the change was going to be.

[Memphis Slim]

Is this what you want?


No one wants that. But if that's what it takes, so be it.

[Memphis Slim]

Did you even think before you made that comment?? Do you have ANY FRIGGIN' CLUE what kind of repercussions dropping a nuke in that part of the world would have???? You think American were pissed about paying $3.00/gal for gas, you nuke that part of the world, and we won't even be ABLE to buy gas. We do not have enough stockpiled in reserves to destroy our main source of oil. War is not something to be taken lightly, it should not be entered into without first trying diplomacy until all avenues are exhausted. Turn your brain on.

I'm not talking about a nuke, dude. That would be foolish. I'm talking about a massive move of our forces. No restrictions on our troops. Let them loose. So far that has not happened.

[Spider-Bite]

I'm not talking about a nuke, dude. That would be foolish. I'm talking about a massive move of our forces. No restrictions on our troops. Let them loose. So far that has not happened.


I hate terrorists like you.

[Hotwire]

I'm not talking about a nuke, dude. That would be foolish. I'm talking about a massive move of our forces. No restrictions on our troops. Let them loose. So far that has not happened.
And for good reason. NO COUNTRY should be allowed to do something like that. Even if we don't use nukes, if we did what you're suggesting, what is there to stop other countries from using THEIR nukes???

[hippie_hunter]

I agree on the tax cuts for the small businesses, however I think they should only be temprorary. Higher wages means higher consumer spending, and gradually after a few years the small businesses' profit range would be right back to where it was prior to the wage hike. I'm one of those who believes that changes to the economy should always try to be implemented gradually, to avoid shocking it. I tend to think of the economy as water in a glass. It finds it shape and molds to the environment.

I agree that it should be only temporary.

[VenomsMom]

Bush accused Saddam of having links to al queda, harboring known terrorists,buying poundcake in Africa, and this justified him to topple his government. He declared this so called war on terror. Now they have accused Iran of trying to build nukes, sponsoring terror, and killing our soldiers. Would it be any surprise if it turned out they are helping their shia brethren, no. When it comes to fighting sunni insurgents the Iraqi pm takes a tough stand. On shia militias, its a hands off approach. Its clear where his loyalties lie. Iraq is becoming nothing more but a little brother to Iran. The militias are becoming stronger every year. We cant even disarm and dismantle them, and this Iraqi government is our so called ally, right.Soldiers are dying for this. The militias are becoming nothing more than another Hezbollah. This war on terror is a joke. Its not even about them killing soldiers,its about blowing those nuclear plants up. That alone will provoke war.If you thought we had trouble fighting in a desert, go look at a geographical map of Iran. The most rugged terrain in the region. Try to invade that. And 70 plus million people, a country almost three times the size of Iraq. Iran is the clear winner and the balance of power has certainly shifted.Hezbollah wants to topple the Lebanese govt.Syria has basically aligned themselves with Iran. Lines have been drawn. Looking at the posts on this board there is a clear disagreement amongst us just like congress and the majority of poeple in the US. If we see utter chaos in Iraq Saudis,Jordanians, and Egyptians see it as well. They didnt mind ousting Saddam but watching the power be handed over to the shias is unacceptable.
Just my thoughts but what do I know,care to chime in pleez feel free.

[winky]

Now gentlemen (ladies), the situation is very obvious: the yankees can't fight. There is no point in invading Iran; there is no point in sending more troops to Iraq. Why? Because they won't win; they can't win.

If they understood prophecy, they would know why they can't win. If they understood the Book of revelation, they would know why they can't win; if they understood The Wizard of Oz, they would know why they can't win this war.

If they had understood the Wizard of Oz, then they would know that what they must do is ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear test Ban Treaty.

Each time the United States goes into another country, it risks turning this whole mess into WWIII; if this thing turns into WWIII, nuclear weapons are going to be involved, and nobody is going to win.

The same thing that happened in Korea, Vietnam is happening here: they start it, but they can't finish it, because to finish it, you have to go after the real trouble makers. They can't go after the real trouble makers until they stop clinging to these weapons which are going to result in a lose-lose scenario for everyone.

[Deleted User]

Now gentlemen (ladies), the situation is very obvious: the yankees can't fight. There is no point in invading Iran; there is no point in sending more troops to Iraq. Why? Because they won't win; they can't win.

If they understood prophecy, they would know why they can't win. If they understood the Book of revelation, they would know why they can't win; if they understood The Wizard of Oz, they would know why they can't win this war.

If they had understood the Wizard of Oz, then they would know that what they must do is ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear test Ban Treaty.

Each time the United States goes into another country, it risks turning this whole mess into WWIII; if this thing turns into WWIII, nuclear weapons are going to be involved, and nobody is going to win.

The same thing that happened in Korea, Vietnam is happening here: they start it, but they can't finish it, because to finish it, you have to go after the real trouble makers. They can't go after the real trouble makers until they stop clinging to these weapons which are going to result in a lose-lose scenario for everyone.

Not to nitpick, but your two examples are wholesale wrong. North Korea first invaded South Korea, and the United States decided to help South Korea from being taken over my a megalomaniacal communist regime. We never started the Korean War. Same thing with Vietnam, we didn't start the Vietnam War. North Vietnam started it, we just stepped in to help the southerners from being taken over by a communist aggressor state.

Please think before you start typing anything about the US. If you don't have a good comprehension of history of the military, you have absolutely no reason to be flapping your jaws and pretending you know something you, in fact, do not.

[winky]

^ Good advice; why don't you follow it?

Who started the war wasn't my point; my point was that the U.S. couldn't win these wars, because they couldn't go after the countries who were supplying the resistance with arms.

[Deleted User]

^ Good advice; why don't you follow it?

Who started the war wasn't my point; my point was that the U.S. couldn't win these wars, because they couldn't go after the countries who were supplying the resistance with arms.

Well, actually the Korean War was much more of a "success" than Vietnam was. And actually, I am following my own advice. What makes you think I'm not?

It doesn't matter if it was your point or not. It matters that you said it and so I corrected you. Despite some people's preconceptions, no, the US does not start all of the world's wars. Saying such is sort of ignorant.

[blind_fury]

To all the people who support an invasion of Iran do you genuises have an exit strategy this time?

[winky]

I know the U.S. didn't start the Vietnam War; I know it didn't start the Korean War. I admit that my statement implies that it did. What I meant was that it got involved, but couldn't finish the job. So you are right, you are nitpicking.

[Venom'sDad]

OK, you seem to lack real ability to put aside your personal views to achieve what is in the best interest of the country and lack real understanding of the situation at hand, the dynamics of International and Corporate Politics, and the power of manipulation. I want you to know that I understand your feelings solely on the topic you raise. I gave the best observation I could without writing a book and going into to many details, because your question is not easy to answer cut and dry. There are a lot of factors and I didn’t want to get bogged down in trying to present all of these factors; so, I presented a limited response assuming your level of understanding would allow you to comprehend what is unspoken.

Now let me clear something up… your question was:
If it's proven that Iran is helping Insurgents in Iraq, does that justify war on Iran... Constitutionally speaking aiding or participating in an attack on our soldiers is justifcation for war, but should we?
You basically answer your own question Constitutionally, with your first sentence; however, here is our response.

It sounds like you want even more soliders to die in vain, and then you'll turn around and call it something else. War is a ridiculous waste of resources, manpower, and human life.

To answer SpiderBite question, at this point yes. Whether one agree or not, at this point, the only acceptable answer is to win and not let those soldiers that came before and died, die in vain. That was the lesson learned in Vietnam by the veterans of that war. America abandon those soldiers and others loss their lives in vain, after America chose to fight the war…. again, whether you agree with it or not, our so-called leaders chose to fight that war and this current war. This country chose this war, so at this point, it must be won.
At no time did I say I was for or against this war. Again, at this point, whether one agree with this war or not, it is imperative that this country and its allies win. The Leaders that 52% of the voting citizens elected for the Presidency and those that are in the House & Senate, chose to out Saddam Hussein from power, based off Intelligence dated as far back as 1995. Now this Intel is not a rightwing or leftwing propaganda tool… the documents actually exist dated April 95. Now whether those documents are erroneous or not, both sides of the fence have supported vigorously, at one time or another, the findings in that report, whether under Clinton or Bush, the Left or the Right. If you wish to believe the rhetoric that both sides spits for political expediency, than go right ahead; however, I say to you their, overall actions speaks for itself. How quick everyday people forget.

Now, I agree, war is a waste of resources, manpower, and human life; however, sometimes, war is needed. I personally, was more than willing, to truly give the world community more time to resolve the issue with Iraq. On the surface, the UN have passed many resolution and sanctions that went ignored by this Leader of Iraq and spent millions of dollars on inspections to no avail and inspectors who some was mislead by Hussein and some was in the pocket of Hussein. That’s the reality of the situation. I don’t how much longer, on the surface, you give someone who continuous go against the wishes of the world community and make a mockery of the UN and what it suppose to stand for.

So again, at this point, it is imperative this country and its allies win. If Iran choose to involve itself in this conflict, actively aiding the insurgency, causing the loss of all life(American, Allies, and Iraqi), and promoting Civil War in Iraq… than yes, they need to be taken down source of the insurgents power and resources. That’s a branch of military strategic. Understand what I’m saying. Not invade, occupy, or regime change; but, take down their ability to provide support to the insurgency. No diplomacy will accomplish that, given the Iranian Leader want the end of Western Civilization… PERIOD.

With that said, I think many of you are really missing the larger picture in play. I understand everyone has their own opinions, see things differently, and is taking sides… I’m no different. However, with most of the people, taking a hard-line on the issue at hand and the country appear to be split many ways; everyone appear to be missing the big picture, that more is going on than what the eye can see. I underline appear, because the Leaders are more unified than you think and not for the obvious reason that most people in this country, most people all over the world, and most of those on these boards… think. It’s not that “we the people” don’t completely know, it’s more of our own ignorance and lack of understanding, apathy, and the fact we choose to ignore certain aspects of the truth because it’s simply easier that way, to give credence to one’s own agenda or opinion. :dry:
As far as this statement is concern, if you don’t already have some understanding of the dynamics of International and Corporate Politics, and the power of manipulation; than, there is nothing I can say to you that would make any sense. Just take it as babbling if you wish, but there is meaning in what I said.

[Addendum]

Just take it as babbling if you wish, but there is meaning in what I said.

so you claim.

[VenomsMom]

Glad to see everyone's arguments, but no response to what I said?

[Spider-Bite]

OK, you seem to lack real ability to put aside your personal views to achieve what is in the best interest of the country and lack real understanding of the situation at hand, the dynamics of International and Corporate Politics, and the power of manipulation. I want you to know that I understand your feelings solely on the topic you raise. I gave the best observation I could without writing a book and going into to many details, because your question is not easy to answer cut and dry. There are a lot of factors and I didn’t want to get bogged down in trying to present all of these factors; so, I presented a limited response assuming your level of understanding would allow you to comprehend what is unspoken.

Now let me clear something up… your question was:

You basically answer your own question Constitutionally, with your first sentence; however, here is our response.




At no time did I say I was for or against this war. Again, at this point, whether one agree with this war or not, it is imperative that this country and its allies win. The Leaders that 52% of the voting citizens elected for the Presidency and those that are in the House & Senate, chose to out Saddam Hussein from power, based off Intelligence dated as far back as 1995. Now this Intel is not a rightwing or leftwing propaganda tool… the documents actually exist dated April 95. Now whether those documents are erroneous or not, both sides of the fence have supported vigorously, at one time or another, the findings in that report, whether under Clinton or Bush, the Left or the Right. If you wish to believe the rhetoric that both sides spits for political expediency, than go right ahead; however, I say to you their, overall actions speaks for itself. How quick everyday people forget.

Now, I agree, war is a waste of resources, manpower, and human life; however, sometimes, war is needed. I personally, was more than willing, to truly give the world community more time to resolve the issue with Iraq. On the surface, the UN have passed many resolution and sanctions that went ignored by this Leader of Iraq and spent millions of dollars on inspections to no avail and inspectors who some was mislead by Hussein and some was in the pocket of Hussein. That’s the reality of the situation. I don’t how much longer, on the surface, you give someone who continuous go against the wishes of the world community and make a mockery of the UN and what it suppose to stand for.

So again, at this point, it is imperative this country and its allies win. If Iran choose to involve itself in this conflict, actively aiding the insurgency, causing the loss of all life(American, Allies, and Iraqi), and promoting Civil War in Iraq… than yes, they need to be taken down source of the insurgents power and resources. That’s a branch of military strategic. Understand what I’m saying. Not invade, occupy, or regime change; but, take down their ability to provide support to the insurgency. No diplomacy will accomplish that, given the Iranian Leader want the end of Western Civilization… PERIOD.


As far as this statement is concern, if you don’t already have some understanding of the dynamics of International and Corporate Politics, and the power of manipulation; than, there is nothing I can say to you that would make any sense. Just take it as babbling if you wish, but there is meaning in what I said.


Nobody wins in war. The real victory is when war is avoided. Our politicians both democrat and republican only do and say what is in their own personal best interest. There is no secret behind the scenes united harmony between them. The voters drive them to their positions and the voters only. There are a few exceptions, but 99% of the time they are corrupt criminals. This debate isn't really between the politicains. It's between the voters.

Iran did not promote a civil war in Iraq, they merely joined up and took sides with the sh.ites, whom by coincedence we also took sides with. Funny coincedence that we'd want to kill Iranians for taking sides with the same people we are taking sides with ain't it?

Our government also gave the finger to the U.N when we pulled out of the Kyoto and again when we invaded Iraq. That doesn't mean me nor you deserve to be bombed.

War with Iran is not in either countrie's best interest. Especially for the sake of revenge or being declared the "winner."

The only way to stop Iran from infuencing Iraq is to do my plan which doesn't involve setting foot even one time on Iranian soil. We stop trying to break up the civil war and redeploy troops to the Iraq border for three years. We let them go at it and have their civil war and we don't step in no matter what. The only way the Iraqis will learn to stop fighting is to find out what fighting is like.

[VenomsMom]

Now gentlemen (ladies), the situation is very obvious: the yankees can't fight. There is no point in invading Iran; there is no point in sending more troops to Iraq. Why? Because they won't win; they can't win.

If they understood prophecy, they would know why they can't win. If they understood the Book of revelation, they would know why they can't win; if they understood The Wizard of Oz, they would know why they can't win this war.

If they had understood the Wizard of Oz, then they would know that what they must do is ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear test Ban Treaty.

Each time the United States goes into another country, it risks turning this whole mess into WWIII; if this thing turns into WWIII, nuclear weapons are going to be involved, and nobody is going to win.

The same thing that happened in Korea, Vietnam is happening here: they start it, but they can't finish it, because to finish it, you have to go after the real trouble makers. They can't go after the real trouble makers until they stop clinging to these weapons which are going to result in a lose-lose scenario for everyone.
In the overall war on terror, there will be regime change in Iran. For it is the last major obstacle.This is the plan and it is inevitable.

[VenomsMom]

Nobody wins in war. The real victory is when war is avoided. Our politicians both democrat and republican only do and say what is in their own personal best interest. There is no secret behind the scenes united harmony between them. The voters drive them to their positions and the voters only. There are a few exceptions, but 99% of the time they are corrupt criminals. This debate isn't really between the politicains. It's between the voters.

Iran did not promote a civil war in Iraq, they merely joined up and took sides with the sh.ites, whom by coincedence we also took sides with. Funny coincedence that we'd want to kill Iranians for taking sides with the same people we are taking sides with ain't it?

Our government also gave the finger to the U.N when we pulled out of the Kyoto and again when we invaded Iraq. That doesn't mean me nor you deserve to be bombed.

War with Iran is not in either countrie's best interest. Especially for the sake of revenge or being declared the "winner."

The only way to stop Iran from infuencing Iraq is to do my plan which doesn't involve setting foot even one time on Iranian soil. We stop trying to break up the civil war and redeploy troops to the Iraq border for three years. We let them go at it and have their civil war and we don't step in no matter what. The only way the Iraqis will learn to stop fighting is to find out what fighting is like.
It will be Lebanon all over again, this is not what they want.

[Hotwire]

Well, actually the Korean War was much more of a "success" than Vietnam was. And actually, I am following my own advice. What makes you think I'm not?

It doesn't matter if it was your point or not. It matters that you said it and so I corrected you. Despite some people's preconceptions, no, the US does not start all of the world's wars. Saying such is sort of ignorant.
We (the U.S.) are still at war with North Korea. We are just under a cease-fire. The war has never been declared over. And you now, you're right, the we don't start all the wars, but at what point will we realize that it not our job to end them all. That is why the U.N. was created. As for Iraq, we had NO BUSINESS going in there in the first place. And if you dare use the whole, Saddam was a brutal dictator logic, there is a long list of other countries with the same damn problem, but we don't even talk about them, let alone invade.

[VenomsMom]

We (the U.S.) are still at war with North Korea. We are just under a cease-fire. The war has never been declared over. And you now, you're right, the we don't start all the wars, but at what point will we realize that it not our job to end them all. That is why the U.N. was created. As for Iraq, we had NO BUSINESS going in there in the first place. And if you dare use the whole, Saddam was a brutal dictator logic, there is a long list of other countries with the same damn problem, but we don't even talk about them, let alone invade.
Yes, They claim Saddam was so much a threat, it took a 2 weeks to take him out and when the pressure was on he hid his a$$ in a hole and didnt even have time to grab his shaving kit. We just had to take this threat out.:whatever:

[Deleted User]

We (the U.S.) are still at war with North Korea. We are just under a cease-fire. The war has never been declared over. And you now, you're right, the we don't start all the wars, but at what point will we realize that it not our job to end them all. That is why the U.N. was created. As for Iraq, we had NO BUSINESS going in there in the first place. And if you dare use the whole, Saddam was a brutal dictator logic, there is a long list of other countries with the same damn problem, but we don't even talk about them, let alone invade.

The "Korean War" basically ended some time ago, though. In it's current iteration, it really isn't going anywhere and there's much more security in S. Korea than S. Vietnam when we pulled out.

Also, I don't know where you got anything about Saddam out of all three, four?, posts of mine in this thread. I'm not trying to say it's our place to end every war, I'm just saying that we don't start every war like some would like to believe that we do.

[StorminNorman]

We (the U.S.) are still at war with North Korea. We are just under a cease-fire. The war has never been declared over. And you now, you're right, the we don't start all the wars, but at what point will we realize that it not our job to end them all. That is why the U.N. was created. As for Iraq, we had NO BUSINESS going in there in the first place. And if you dare use the whole, Saddam was a brutal dictator logic, there is a long list of other countries with the same damn problem, but we don't even talk about them, let alone invade.

Actually we did. At the end of the Gulf War, we ended hostilities by way of a treaty. Saddam broke the rules of the treaty, thus hostilities were legally allowed to continue.

[Memphis Slim]

Actually we did. At the end of the Gulf War, we ended hostilities by way of a treaty. Saddam broke the rules of the treaty, thus hostilities were legally allowed to continue.



People conveniently forget that. :dry:

[Venom'sDad]

Nobody wins in war.

OK man, after that first sentence, I'm through with you, I see you don't have a clue as to what you are saying and is just saying sh!+ that sound good but have no merit what so ever. That has to be the most ridicules, most assinine statement of the day. This country itself, would not be here, if no one won. Just pick one. Rev. War, Mex. War, The War with the Indian Nation, Civil War, Spa/Amer War, WWII.

I know what you trying to say, 'any loss of life in war, no one wins'; but hell, that's the Nature of War. People die in War. You cannot let anyone or country threaten your existence, way of life, sovereignty, etc, just because you don't believe in war. That's one of the reasons why great societies have fallen, because its people loses their tolerence for war. Look, you are a well meaning guy and probably wouldn't harm a roach, but sometimes war is needed. Again, maybe not in this case, but America is there, American soldiers are there, Allied soldiers are there... at this point I support them and hope they win.

Agree, to totally Disagree. :dry:

[Spider-Bite]

OK man, after that first sentence, I'm through with you, I see you don't have a clue as to what you are saying and is just saying sh!+ that sound good but have no merit what so ever. That has to be the most ridicules, most assinine statement of the day. This country itself, would not be here, if no one won. Just pick one. Rev. War, Mex. War, The War with the Indian Nation, Civil War, Spa/Amer War, WWII.

I know what you trying to say, 'any loss of life in war, no one wins'; but hell, that's the Nature of War. People die in War. You cannot let anyone or country threaten your existence, way of life, sovereignty, etc, just because you don't believe in war. That's one of the reasons why great societies have fallen, because its people loses their tolerence for war. Look, you are a well meaning guy and probably wouldn't harm a roach, but sometimes war is needed. Again, maybe not in this case, but America is there, American soldiers are there, Allied soldiers are there... at this point I support them and hope they win.

Agree, to totally Disagree. :dry:

didn't say you can't defend yourself with war. I said it's a loss. If we are forced to fight, then we lost. Maybe we didn't lose as much as could have, maybe we didn't lose as much as the Indians or the Jews, but something is still lost. When groups don't go to war, then neither side loses anything.

When I was 8 years old I got into a fight with another 8 year old. When it was done he was crying his eyes out, and I was unhurt.
Did I win?

2 days later his 11 year old brother snuck up on me from behind and bodyslammed me head first into the pavement.

You see none of us won anything? I got body slammed, the first kid got hurt and humiliated, and his big brother got suspended. None of us won anything at all.

and it's funny how you resort to insulting me, when you edit out my entire post except for 4 words.

[mwm1331]

Personally I think we should bomb Iran for a couple weeks straight then mine the borders on general principle.

[VenomsMom]

didn't say you can't defend yourself with war. I said it's a loss. If we are forced to fight, then we lost. Maybe we didn't lose as much as could have, maybe we didn't lose as much as the Indians or the Jews, but something is still lost. When groups don't go to war, then neither side loses anything.

When I was 8 years old I got into a fight with another 8 year old. When it was done he was crying his eyes out, and I was unhurt.
Did I win?

2 days later his 11 year old brother snuck up on me from behind and bodyslammed me head first into the pavement.

You see none of us won anything? I got body slammed, the first kid got hurt and humiliated, and his big brother got suspended. None of us won anything at all.

and it's funny how you resort to insulting me, when you edit out my entire post except for 4 words.
You didnt sign a peace treaty, did you?

[VenomsMom]

Personally I think we should bomb Iran for a couple weeks straight then mine the borders on general principle.
Great Idea! Iran would just sit back and do absolutely nothing.:whatever:

[mwm1331]

Great Idea! Iran would just sit back and do absolutely nothing.:whatever:
Actually thats about all they could do. In a ground invasion they could provide a challenge, a iraq is showing, but from a Airpower standpoint it would be the equivalent of a superman vs cheeks the toy wonder fight.

[VenomsMom]

If you think Iran is a problem now let a missile land on their soil,besides like I said in a post before,they will take out those nuclear facilities eventually,mark my words.Read my posts. Its coming.

[mwm1331]

If you think Iran is a problem now let a missile land on their soil,besides like I said in a post before,they will take out those nuclear facilities eventually,mark my words.Read my posts. Its coming.

What exactly do you think they would do that they aren't already?
They don't have the abillity to attack us directly, they can't afford as it is to do more to fund other terrorist organisations, (hell they recently had to institute gasoline rationing) they know if they attack isreal directly they would in fact be the ones "wiped off the map" and they are already supporting several of the factions in Iraq.
In truth there isn't much to lose by bombing the **** out of them. As long as we use our airpower to ensure noone leaves Iran, we could just seal them up untill enough of the country starves to force them to either surrender or overthrow the Mullahs.

[VenomsMom]

Bomb the **** out of them, starve them to death? You would have a massive humanitarian crisis on your hands of epic proportion! 70 plus million people. Then what. Thats the strategy. Why would the US want to bring that much heat on them.This will only serve to unite the nation.Once again the US will probably have no support in such an endeavor.

[mwm1331]

Bomb the **** out of them, starve them to death? You would have a massive humanitarian crisis on your hands of epic proportion! 70 plus million people.


So? There a massive humanitarian crisis going on in darfur and noone gives two ****s.

Then what. Thats the strategy. Why would the US want to bring that much heat on them.This will only serve to unite the nation.Once again the US will probably have no support in such an endeavor.
So?
How much has the support in Afghanistan helped? NATO can't coordinate with the EU due to the cyprus dispute, the taliban is being allowed to regroup and is expected to launch an offensive in the summer, and the UN is as useless as tits on a bull.
We need to stop playing nice with our enemies and simply break them. Then we can rebuild, people forget that before the marshall plan the germans were curbstomped untill they had no will left to oppose anyone, same with japan.

[VenomsMom]

Right, no one gives a rata$$ about Sudan, there aint **** there.The Taliban is regrouping in Pakistan another one our so called good friends.We have no access to them.You simply going to destroy a nation and then send billions of more dollars of our tax money to pay for it all,pleez.Oh yeah will just pay for it with oil money that worked in Iraq, huh.

[mwm1331]

Right, no one gives a rata$$ about Sudan, there aint **** there.The Taliban is regrouping in Pakistan another one our so called good friends.We have no access to them.You simply going to destroy a nation and then send billions of more dollars of our tax money to pay for it all,pleez.Oh yeah will just pay for it with oil money that worked in Iraq, huh.

Like I said it worked in germany and japan, the key difference is in both Nations, the populace was completly broken first. Had we done the same in Iraq, there would be no insurgency today.
Problem is we went in and tried to "win hearts and minds" like a bunch of touchy feely idiots.

[Venom'sDad]

didn't say you can't defend yourself with war. I said it's a loss. If we are forced to fight, then we lost. Maybe we didn't lose as much as could have, maybe we didn't lose as much as the Indians or the Jews, but something is still lost. When groups don't go to war, then neither side loses anything.

When I was 8 years old I got into a fight with another 8 year old. When it was done he was crying his eyes out, and I was unhurt.
Did I win?

2 days later his 11 year old brother snuck up on me from behind and bodyslammed me head first into the pavement.

You see none of us won anything? I got body slammed, the first kid got hurt and humiliated, and his big brother got suspended. None of us won anything at all.

and it's funny how you resort to insulting me, when you edit out my entire post except for 4 words.

I'm not insulting you, it's your statement that I emphasize. I thought I was given you some credit as been "well meaning", and even not "harming a roach"

Again, I know what you are saying, but I'm sorry man, that rationale of thought has no real merit in reality. It is stupid, in todays world. The people already want Western Civilization to come under the rule of Fatah. Period. There is a war of ideology being waged.

So I simply stop you right there at your first sentence, because if you think "no one wins", than there is no reason for me to continue debating with you, with your mind-set so obscure. Besides, I already addressed the rest of your post in my previous post... no sense of keep rehashing it.

Bottomline, IMO, I answered your original question.

[VenomsMom]

Like I said it worked in germany and japan, the key difference is in both Nations, the populace was completly broken first. Had we done the same in Iraq, there would be no insurgency today.
Problem is we went in and tried to "win hearts and minds" like a bunch of touchy feely idiots.
The entire world took part in restoring Germany and Japan, it was a joint effort. The world took part in that war. The US would be striking Iran in a F*** yall we'll do it ourselves mentality. Thats the problem.

[mwm1331]

The entire world took part in restoring Germany and Japan, it was a joint effort. The world took part in that war. The US would be striking Iran in a F*** yall we'll do it ourselves mentality. Thats the problem.
Why?
Since when it doing it yourself a bad thing?
Since when has the rest of the world had the same interests we do?
We had a broad coalition in 92, as a result we couldn't take bagdhad then, when the Iraqi's would have supported us becasue our "allies" threatened to pull out.
We went to the moon alone, does that make it bad?
I could care less if the rest of the world agrees with our actions. Half of it will hate us no matter what we do anyway.
When the hell did we become a nation that requires validation of our every action?

[Spider-Bite]

I'm not insulting you, it's your statement that I emphasize. I thought I was given you some credit as been "well meaning", and even not "harming a roach"

Again, I know what you are saying, but I'm sorry man, that rationale of thought has no real merit in reality. It is stupid, in todays world. The people already want Western Civilization to come under the rule of Fatah. Period. There is a war of ideology being waged.

So I simply stop you right there at your first sentence, because if you think "no one wins", than there is no reason for me to continue debating with you, with your mind-set so obscure. Besides, I already addressed the rest of your post in my previous post... no sense of keep rehashing it.

Bottomline, IMO, I answered your original question.


Alquida attacked us because they wanted less interferrence. What they got was lots more interferrence. We waged two wars because we wanted to protect american lives and the american economy. What we got was thousands more dead, and what we lost was hundreds of billions of dollars.

We gained nothing and lost a lot. The muslim world gained nothing and lost a lot as well. Both sides have already lost and neither side won.

[VenomsMom]

Why?
Since when it doing it yourself a bad thing?
Since when has the rest of the world had the same interests we do?
We had a broad coalition in 92, as a result we couldn't take bagdhad then, when the Iraqi's would have supported us becasue our "allies" threatened to pull out.
We went to the moon alone, does that make it bad?
I could care less if the rest of the world agrees with our actions. Half of it will hate us no matter what we do anyway.
When the hell did we become a nation that requires validation of our every action?
Yes well, this is why we are on our own footing the bills and losing thousands of soldiers lives. They told daddy Bush what would happen if they went to Baghdad. Thats why they didnt. What Iraqis would have supported this, the shia and kurds. Why would the sunnis allow that to happen. And such a move would have delighted Iran fresh off of fighting a war with Saddam. Looks like you are back to square one. The other sunni nations would not approve that move as the balance of power shifts to the shia.The insurgency would have happened much sooner.

[mwm1331]

Yes well, this is why we are on our own footing the bills and losing thousands of soldiers lives. They told daddy Bush what would happen if they went to Baghdad. Thats why they didn't

Not true. In point of fact Bush senior wanted to go untill the saudi's and others told him if he did they would pull out of the coalition and remove its "legitimacy" Since a very large contingent of the coalition was from arab nations that were with the saudi's he decided not to go in. In point of fact if we had invaded then it would have worked since, due to his promise of american support, there was an attempted revolution at the time. In point of fact the whole reason we got so little local support this time around is becasue the peple of Iraq got slaughtered by the tens of thousands the last time they trusted the US.



What Iraqis would have supported this, the shia and kurds. Why would the sunnis allow that to happen. And such a move would have delighted Iran fresh off of fighting a war with Saddam. Looks like you are back to square one. The other sunni nations would not approve that move as the balance of power shifts to the shia.The insurgency would have happened much sooner.

Looks like you have no clue what your talking about. In point the 92 revolution was comprised of both sunni and shias. Both groups were slaughtered.

[VenomsMom]

People in his own administration warned against such a move.They have said this during the course of this conflict. Who would have been responsible for occupying Iraq, we would have.We had the bulk of military forces.When we left we incited the shias to rebel and Saddam crushed it brutally. Kurds were mistreated under Saddam as well as I stated above. There would have been a power grab in the nation no matter what. No one was going to commit to that. They never would have allowed the shia to dominate power in that country.

[mwm1331]

People in his own administration warned against such a move.They have said this during the course of this conflict. Who would have been responsible for occupying Iraq, we would have.We had the bulk of military forces.When we left we incited the shias to rebel and Saddam crushed it brutally. Kurds were mistreated under Saddam as well as I stated above. There would have been a power grab in the nation no matter what. No one was going to commit to that. They never would have allowed the shia to dominate power in that country.

They are saying that now, its not what they were saying then, or before the run-up to this conflict.

[Addendum]

When I was 8 years old I got into a fight with another 8 year old. When it was done he was crying his eyes out, and I was unhurt.
Did I win?



Yes you won. Just like in Thunderdome: 2 men enter. 1 man leaves.

However, "winning" doesn't remove the consequences from your actions.