The Iran Thread

[LouFerignoDemon]

So you would invade any country the government told you to? No questions asked?

Instigating an argument?



As for me, I'm not an American citizen, so I can't be drafted by the American military.

However, if I were, chances are, I wouldn't really have much of a choice, and dodging the draft is punishable by law.

The truth is, a draft would only be instituted when the war is so absolutely devastating, that it would literally put the stability of the said country instituting the draft into a negative position, and a draft to make sure the continued existance of the country continued. At least, at this point. America disengaged it's draft after the Vietnam War, when it was basically wasting human life on a war it didn't have to fight.

Times change, and people learn. They wouldn't again institute a draft unless the country literally required one.

If it ever came down to the stability of people other than myself as a society I believed in, I would willingly enter a draft.

 

[Spider-Bite]

A time is probably going to come when war with Iran is inevitable. That really sucks. As of right now though it's still avoidable. Our government has not been doing the right thing as far as making sure it remains unavoidable though. Bush has just been making it more and more likely, and that really sucks. That really sucks.

We should be telling Israel that they must disarm their nuclear weapons in order to keep our protection, or for us to pressure Iran into hatling it's uranium enrichment. We should have also told them not to bomb Lebannon. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq, and we shouldn't have refused talks, and Bush should have debated Tehran. We should be taking stronger steps to get off of oil. We should have congratulated Iran and Britain on the peaceful resolution to the capture of the Brazillian soldiers. Our leader should be using more positive dialogue towards Iran instead of hostile. Tehran's outragous comments he's made are often used against him in America, and we should be smart enough to know that Bush's comments are used against America in Iran.

We should be saying "look Tehran your not the enemy, and I'm not the enemy. We both want what's best for out countries, and I don't think your a bad guy." Instead of all this axis of evil talk or refusing to have peace talks or having our leaders always focus on the "wipe Israel off the map comment"

 

[blind_fury]

So let's hear your plan then?

Sit with your finger shoved up your butt and your head buried under the ground and hope that the big bad man goes away?

I'm not sure an invasion is any wiser.

What would you do if another country preemptively invaded yours?

You would and every man you know would fight tooth and nail to kill every invader.

In other news, Iran has 70 million people.

 

[blind_fury]

Instigating an argument?

No, I'm inviting discussion and thoughtful discourse.

what's wrong with that?

As for me, I'm not an American citizen, so I can't be drafted by the American military.

However, if I were, chances are, I wouldn't really have much of a choice, and dodging the draft is punishable by law.

The truth is, a draft would only be instituted when the war is so absolutely devastating, that it would literally put the stability of the said country instituting the draft into a negative position, and a draft to make sure the continued existance of the country continued. At least, at this point. America disengaged it's draft after the Vietnam War, when it was basically wasting human life on a war it didn't have to fight.

Times change, and people learn. They wouldn't again institute a draft unless the country literally required one.

If it ever came down to the stability of people other than myself as a society I believed in, I would willingly enter a draft.

What if they drafted you to stop Saddam Hussien from get WMD or the Iranian president from getting WMD? Would you volunteer for the invasion?

The more things change...

 

[Spider-Bite]

Well weve been told that Iran is channeling money to Alquida, and Iran is enriching Uranium, and they are playing a small part in the chaos in Iraq, so I don't know if it would still be considered pre-emptive at this point. It's not like arresting a criminal because you think he might commit a crime, it's more like arresting a criminal for possessing something he's not supposed to have, as far as the enriching uranium goes.

but at the same time, I'm skeptical of what our government tells us as far as the giving money to Alquida. Osama bin Laden is a Sunni, and Tehran is a shiite.

I am opposed to an invasion of Iran with these current circumstances, not even counting the military being stretched thin with our resrouces being consumed by Iraq. We haven't fully exhuasted diplomatic efforts yet.

 

[Spider-Fett]

What do you know about the Iranians that us "ignorant tv watchers" don't?

Are they planning to take over the United States?

Don't tell me. It's classified, right?

Much more then you, let's leave that at that.

The Iranians cannot take over the U.S.

But the world isn't all about property. We have allies, interests and a myriad of other things that are held very valuable to this country that would be put in great danger and possibly destroyed if certain radical countries developed the capability the produce and use nuclear weapons (the greatest and most threatening weapon in the world today)

The world isn't a big place when it comes to the kind of decisions that are being made when it involves Iran and the middle east. This isn't something that you can just turn your back on and hope it goes away. The world is one, what happens to one country affects us all and taking steps to stop the bully from beating up our friends and not getting reprimanded is an action that is required preemptively.

But I guess you are one of those people who just think if we leave the world alone they will leave us alone right? Time to grow up and look at the neighborhood instead of just your own yard.

"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

No, I'm inviting discussion and thoughtful discourse.

what's wrong with that?

Potato/potatoe?

What if they drafted you to stop Saddam Hussien from get WMD or the Iranian president from getting WMD? Would you volunteer for the invasion?

The more things change...

There'd be no reason to draft for that, nor is there reason to believe there were.

This reminds me of a question a friend once faced me with.

"If you and Martin were the only people on Earth, would you have sex?" And I said "No". So he said, "Well, what if you were really aroused?" I said, "I'd get myself off alone." "Well....what if you HAD to have sex with him?" Then I said, "Of course, since I'm left with no choice in a highly unlikely, and vastly irrational circumstance that couldn't possibly exist but in the smallest of all possibilities."

IF I were to be drafted, then it wouldn't really matter, as the war would be over in weeks, before I even finished basic most likely. And that's IF America drafted women, which make up more than half of America I believe.

IF this were to happen, I really wouldn't care, because I'd be outed just as quickly as I got in.

IF this were to happen, chances are America would undergo a revolution again, because their own government failed to utilize it's single greatest resource without much thought to it.

But then again, IF they did that, with zero precedent, the military would be too full to manage, and ultimately, the desired effect would be lost.

 

[blind_fury]

A time is probably going to come when war with Iran is inevitable. That really sucks. As of right now though it's still avoidable. Our government has not been doing the right thing as far as making sure it remains unavoidable though. Bush has just been making it more and more likely, and that really sucks. That really sucks.

We should be telling Israel that they must disarm their nuclear weapons in order to keep our protection, or for us to pressure Iran into hatling it's uranium enrichment. We should have also told them not to bomb Lebannon. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq, and we shouldn't have refused talks, and Bush should have debated Tehran. We should be taking stronger steps to get off of oil. We should have congratulated Iran and Britain on the peaceful resolution to the capture of the Brazillian soldiers. Our leader should be using more positive dialogue towards Iran instead of hostile. Tehran's outragous comments he's made are often used against him in America, and we should be smart enough to know that Bush's comments are used against America in Iran.

We should be saying "look Tehran your not the enemy, and I'm not the enemy. We both want what's best for out countries, and I don't think your a bad guy." Instead of all this axis of evil talk or refusing to have peace talks or having our leaders always focus on the "wipe Israel off the map comment"

I can't believe so many people say they're ready to invade Iran.

They don't ask if there's an exit strategy. They don't even ask if the millions of lives will be worth it. They don't care if the preemptive strike is based on urgent and valid intelligence. They will just do what ever the government ask of them no matter if it's counter-productive or not.

scary s--t.

 

[Spider-Fett]

I'm not sure an invasion is any wiser.

What would you do if another country preemptively invaded yours?

You would and every man you know would fight tooth and nail to kill every invader.

In other news, Iran has 70 million people.

Preemptive is a nice word to throw around. How much longer can you realistically give a country that has been told by the world at large to stop doing something and they keep doing it anyway? How long do you give them to keep pushing through illegal acts and getting closer and closer to nuclear weapons before you finally show them that you aren't just full of hot air?

How long do you let the bully poke you before you finally throw a punch?

That is how these people get where they are now, they rely on the spineless to plea bargain, and beg and offer for them to stop doing the wrong thing. They push it to the point where they are just about to get stung and then they back off and apologize and say they will never do it again. Then they start doing it again in secret, untill someone finds out, then they let it play and let it play and let it play till they get to the point of getting stung and then they back off and apologize etc etc etc.

They play people's emotions like fiddles. Because they don't follow the rules and know that we will. So they do what they want and laugh as the American people make their government less and less powerfull and they get what they want anyway.

How many truces must we sign and then watch as the enemy on the brink of defeat restocks and rearms themselves to fight again at full strength a few years down the road only to waste precious lives and resources untill they get on the brink of defeat and sign another truce so they can rebuild their strength?

There is a word for people who let someone else walk all over them again and again. It's "Sucker"

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Now, don't get me wrong, I actually enjoy diplomacy. Rolling over a country implies the country that did said rolling, must, with strained resources, encompass the new country as either part of it's own, or as part of a restructuring process. And usually, if there's a truce possibility, it's because the resources needed to smash the other country is great.

Diplomacy should be a first, or else it causes more conflicts. While countries will always arm, that part is natural. Whether a country smites another or not will never affect that. If anything, it would accelerate it.

 

[blind_fury]

Much more then you, let's leave that at that.

The Iranians cannot take over the U.S.

But the world isn't all about property. We have allies, interests and a myriad of other things that are held very valuable to this country that would be put in great danger and possibly destroyed if certain radical countries developed the capability the produce and use nuclear weapons (the greatest and most threatening weapon in the world today)

The world isn't a big place when it comes to the kind of decisions that are being made when it involves Iran and the middle east. This isn't something that you can just turn your back on and hope it goes away. The world is one, what happens to one country affects us all and taking steps to stop the bully from beating up our friends and not getting reprimanded is an action that is required preemptively.

But I guess you are one of those people who just think if we leave the world alone they will leave us alone right? Time to grow up and look at the neighborhood instead of just your own yard.

"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

Have you ever contemplated that invading Iran could possibly make things worse?

Or is not an Americans "duty" to care about silly things like reason or foresight.

 

[Spider-Fett]

Have you ever contemplated that invading Iran could possibly make things worse?

Or is not an Americans "duty" to care about silly things like reason or foresight.

And have you ever thought that not invading it could make it worse?

You are giving a government that has come out time and time again and sworn to it's people and told the world that they are going to dedicate themselves to wiping another country from the face of the earth. And you give them the benefit of the doubt. Like maybe they were just joking?

You act as if we are going to conquer Iran and make it the 51st state just out of greed and spite. All Iran has to do is stop it's nuclear development and allow international inspectors in to prove that they did it and they would be left alone.

I always find it funny how people will accuse and judge the most innocent of people, yet let the guilty and the evil get a second chance.

 

[millennium movies]

I can't believe so many people say they're ready to invade Iran.

They don't ask if there's an exit strategy. They don't even ask if the millions of lives will be worth it. They don't care if the preemptive strike is based on urgent and valid intelligence. They will just do what ever the government ask of them no matter if it's counter-productive or not.

scary s--t.

That means the Govt./Army is doing a good job...brainwashing you could say. It's all about the media... sadly

 

[Superhobo]

You know, back in the sixties we had a war similar in some ways to this one. And, we also had what seems to be a lost art now. It was called protest. So many of you I've read say that, while the war itself is suspect, the chain of command is not. This is a convoluted theory at best, when it comes to what orders this command is issuing.

We had protests, with people who felt that, rather than get drafted in a war such as what they had (Vietnam), they protested, and they fought. And, they rioted. But, apparently, what it comes down to now, from ONE post I read, is that avoiding the draft is illegal, so we shouldn't do that. Screw that.

Sigh.

 

[Spider-Fett]

You know, back in the sixties we had a war similar in some ways to this one. And, we also had what seems to be a lost art now. It was called protest. So many of you I've read say that, while the war itself is suspect, the chain of command is not. This is a convoluted theory at best, when it comes to what orders this command is issuing.

We had protests, with people who felt that, rather than get drafted in a war such as what they had (Vietnam), they protested, and they fought. And, they rioted. But, apparently, what it comes down to now, from ONE post I read, is that avoiding the draft is illegal, so we shouldn't do that. Screw that.

Sigh.

This isn't the sixties and this isn't Vietnam.

 

[blind_fury]

Potato/potatoe?






There'd be no reason to draft for that, nor is there reason to believe there were.

This reminds me of a question a friend once faced me with.

"If you and Martin were the only people on Earth, would you have sex?" And I said "No". So he said, "Well, what if you were really aroused?" I said, "I'd get myself off alone." "Well....what if you HAD to have sex with him?" Then I said, "Of course, since I'm left with no choice in a highly unlikely, and vastly irrational circumstance that couldn't possibly exist but in the smallest of all possibilities."

IF I were to be drafted, then it wouldn't really matter, as the war would be over in weeks, before I even finished basic most likely. And that's IF America drafted women, which make up more than half of America I believe.

IF this were to happen, I really wouldn't care, because I'd be outed just as quickly as I got in.

IF this were to happen, chances are America would undergo a revolution again, because their own government failed to utilize it's single greatest resource without much thought to it.

But then again, IF they did that, with zero precedent, the military would be too full to manage, and ultimately, the desired effect would be lost.

You can't be too sure what the pentagon/white house is capable of.

If days after 9-11 someone told me we were going to invade Iraq years after attacking the Taliban based on rumored WMDs I would say they were crazy. "There's no way the American people would go for it."

Yet here we are.

I'm asking how people would respond if drafted to invade Iran. The likelihood of it happening is irrelevant because it cannot be proven one way or the other. After the preemptive invasion of Iraq, who knows what our so-called leaders are capable of?

 

[Superhobo]

This isn't the sixties and this isn't Vietnam.

Wow. Those are some good counter-arguments there.

 

[Spider-Fett]

You can't be too sure what the pentagon/white house is capable of.

If days after 9-11 someone told me we were going to invade Iraq years after attacking the Taliban based on rumored WMDs I would say they were crazy. "There's no way the American people would go for it."

Yet here we are.

I'm asking how people would respond if drafted to invade Iran. The likelihood of it happening is irrelevant because it cannot be proven one way or the other. After the preemptive invasion of Iraq, who knows what our so-called leaders are capable of?

It's sad that America has gotten to this point.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

You know, back in the sixties we had a war similar in some ways to this one. And, we also had what seems to be a lost art now. It was called protest. So many of you I've read say that, while the war itself is suspect, the chain of command is not. This is a convoluted theory at best, when it comes to what orders this command is issuing.

We had protests, with people who felt that, rather than get drafted in a war such as what they had (Vietnam), they protested, and they fought. And, they rioted. But, apparently, what it comes down to now, from ONE post I read, is that avoiding the draft is illegal, so we shouldn't do that. Screw that.

Sigh.

I meant as it was punishable by law, and since I'd have no real reason to resist it by the reasons I gave alongside it, I just wouldn't.

Context. Pulling what I said out of it changes what I said entirely.

 

[Superhobo]

You basically gave a definition to why we would have a draft. The thing is, we're kinda pulling a "Vietnam" right now (it's not AS BAD by any means, but given time), and IF the U.S. did institute a draft, it would be the same situation.


BTW, I'm about to go to bed, so don't think I just gave up on this. See ya'll in the mornin'.

 

[Spider-Fett]

Wow. Those are some good counter-arguments there.

Counter arguements to what? That 40 years ago people protested against a war? People protest now against the war, and just like then it does nothing but lower morale and make the soldiers doubt themselves. You think Vietnam ended because a bunch of potheads sat outside barefoot?

And let's get to the other side of the matter. For every draft dodger there was another soldier who had to go back into that hellhole for another tour because the war needed soldiers. They are the ones who pay the price.

 

[blind_fury]

Preemptive is a nice word to throw around. How much longer can you realistically give a country that has been told by the world at large to stop doing something and they keep doing it anyway? How long do you give them to keep pushing through illegal acts and getting closer and closer to nuclear weapons before you finally show them that you aren't just full of hot air?

How long do you let the bully poke you before you finally throw a punch?

That is how these people get where they are now, they rely on the spineless to plea bargain, and beg and offer for them to stop doing the wrong thing. They push it to the point where they are just about to get stung and then they back off and apologize and say they will never do it again. Then they start doing it again in secret, untill someone finds out, then they let it play and let it play and let it play till they get to the point of getting stung and then they back off and apologize etc etc etc.

They play people's emotions like fiddles. Because they don't follow the rules and know that we will. So they do what they want and laugh as the American people make their government less and less powerfull and they get what they want anyway.

How many truces must we sign and then watch as the enemy on the brink of defeat restocks and rearms themselves to fight again at full strength a few years down the road only to waste precious lives and resources untill they get on the brink of defeat and sign another truce so they can rebuild their strength?

There is a word for people who let someone else walk all over them again and again. It's "Sucker"

A preemptive strike may allow you to win a battle but you may ultimately lose the war. If we preemptively stuck Japan before Pearl Harbor who knows how many allies we would've lost?

Russia might of seen us as the aggressor. We could claim we had urgent intelligence that demanded a preemptive attack but it would may of fell on deaf ears. Really who would join forces with someone who attacked a country first claiming self-defense?

Sometimes striking first destroys your moral authority and weakens your alliance. You win the battle but lose the war. It's happening as we speak.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

That's a mighty huge IF you guys are weighing down.

And those would be my reasons for accepting a draft as well, because that'd be the only reasonable reason we'd ever see a draft in your country again. Total War, not surging a country with so many people that you're stepping over each other's toes trying to do something that an already existing military force could do on it's own.


But as I said, time moves forward, and people have learned their lesson since then.

I actually do not disagree with the idea for a draft, all I'm doing is stipulating WHY a draft would be called/my reasons for accepting one.

Because, realistically, there's no chance of a draft. There's been talks about it, but there's also been talks about having guns being allowed to take into bars.

 

[blind_fury]

Counter arguements to what? That 40 years ago people protested against a war? People protest now against the war, and just like then it does nothing but lower morale and make the soldiers doubt themselves. You think Vietnam ended because a bunch of potheads sat outside barefoot?

And let's get to the other side of the matter. For every draft dodger there was another soldier who had to go back into that hellhole for another tour because the war needed soldiers. They are the ones who pay the price.

Not just potheads opposed the Vietnam War. The entire country was divided over it.

You blame draft dodgers for soldiers doing six tours in Vietnam not the politicians who demanded them to do the six tours. Interesting.

I guess the next time a gang attempts to recruit me I should feel guilty for "dodging them". Their just going to recruit some other poor guy because I didn't accept an opportunity to "serve my neighborhood gang". Shame on me.

 

[Spider-Fett]

A preemptive strike may allow you to win a battle but you may ultimately lose the war. If we preemptively stuck Japan before Pearl Harbor who knows how many allies we would've lost?

Russia might of seen us as the aggressor. We could claim we had urgent intelligence that demanded a preemptive attack but it would may of fell on deaf ears. Really who would join forces with someone who attacked a country first claiming self-defense?

Sometimes striking first destroys your moral authority and weakens your alliance. You win the battle but lose the war. It's happening as we speak.

So are you saying that we haven't warned Iran? That we didn't give them any time?

We gave Sadaam time, we told him what we were going to do and when we were going to do it. And he didn't listen and was tried and convicted by his own people in their own justice system and hung.

As far as our allies go. They are all waiting for us to take the lead. Iran has been given it's time. It's not like we are just stopping by and bombing them out of the blue. They know what they face if they continue to disobey the worlds will.