The Iran Thread

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

  • yes

  • no

  • not sure


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, but the end may begin when Iran explodes a nuke on Israeli soil.

You cannot just declare another war without looking at the ramification of that decision, and US's capacity to wedge another war and post-war occupation. The fact is, US is now borrowing billions to fund their current wars, which will have a long-term negative effect on our economy and ability to function as a government, not to mention that US is owing their debts to countries like China. And our forces right now are stretched thin, with many soldiers having to serve 15 months tour of duty as opposed to standard 12. If US going into its 3rd war then draft is unavoidable. There are just too many reasons not to go to war, even if that nation is Iran. You can thank the Bush Administration for that.
 
You cannot just declare another war without looking at the ramification of that decision, and US's capacity to wedge another war and post-war occupation. The fact is, US is now borrowing billions to fund their current wars, which will have a long-term negative effect on our economy and ability to function as a government, not to mention that US is owing their debts to countries like China. And our forces right now are stretched thin, with many soldiers having to serve 15 months tour of duty as opposed to standard 12. If US going into its 3rd war then draft is unavoidable. There are just too many reasons not to go to war, even if that nation is Iran. You can thank the Bush Administration for that.

Has Iran not already declared war on the US by killing our soldiers, providing weapons that kill our soldiers and providing training for combatants who kill our soldiers? If that is not "war," then what, pray tell, is it?

Our military is fine. There will be no draft. My friend is leaving at the end of the month for Parris Island. The Marines will not even enlist any infantry right now because they are so high above their enlistment goals.
 
Has Iran not already declared war on the US by killing our soldiers, providing weapons that kill our soldiers and providing training for combatants who kill our soldiers? If that is not "war," then what, pray tell, is it?

Our military is fine. There will be no draft. My friend is leaving at the end of the month for Parris Island. The Marines will not even enlist any infantry right now because they are so high above their enlistment goals.

That is due to Iran's relations with Shia insurgency, and Iran even has ties to Iraq's current president, who is also a Shia. When Shia insurgents wanted to use military force to drive out the US troops, of course they will turn to Iran for help, who did so. And the reason for this happening is due to the destability of Iraq, which created militia who wanted to take control of the region. And US's post-war lack of planning that helped contributed to this creation of chaos.

As for your optimism that there will be no draft, I do not share this optimism. Just because the enlistment goals are met doesn't mean there will be enough for a full occupation of a country like Iran.
 
That is due to Iran's relations with Shia insurgency, and Iran even has ties to Iraq's current president, who is also a Shia. When Shia insurgents wanted to use military force to drive out the US troops, of course they will turn to Iran for help, who did so. And the reason for this happening is due to the destability of Iraq, which created militia who wanted to take control of the region. And US's post-war lack of planning that helped contributed to this creation of chaos.

As for your optimism that there will be no draft, I do not share this optimism. Just because the enlistment goals are met doesn't mean there will be enough for a full occupation of a country like Iran.

Who cares what the reasons are for Iran killing my countrymen and our brave soldiers? What reason is acceptable? They are currently killing US soldiers. I'm not concerned with the reason. I'm concerned with stopping it.
 
Who cares what the reasons are for Iran killing my countrymen and our brave soldiers? What reason is acceptable? They are currently killing US soldiers. I'm not concerned with the reason. I'm concerned with stopping it.

So invading a country is the only solution, without consideration on whether US can substain or afford another costy war?
 
No, but the end may begin when Iran explodes a nuke on Israeli soil.

It may be hard for to understand, but they aren't that stupid, they know that one of their made-shift nukes will not kill every single Israeli, so why use it. But they do know that Israeli and of course US has the capabilities to wipe them out. So there for THEY WONT DO IT.
 
So invading a country is the only solution, without consideration on whether US can substain or afford another costy war?

I think if a nation is actively killing our brave soldiers, hell yes, they better be ready to face the consequences.

Many in Iran are already fed up with the Iranian leadership. A good friend of mine is half Iranian and his father currently lives there. I feel that much of the Iranian citizenry would join the US in overthrowing the Iranian leadership. But they will be hard pressed to do it on their own, without assistance.
 
It may be hard for to understand, but they aren't that stupid, they know that one of their made-shift nukes will not kill every single Israeli, so why use it. But they do know that Israeli and of course US has the capabilities to wipe them out. So there for THEY WONT DO IT.

What do they care about getting wiped out? That's just the immediate martyr's ticket to 72 virgins.
 
I think if a nation is actively killing our brave soldiers, hell yes, they better be ready to face the consequences.

Many in Iran are already fed up with the Iranian leadership. A good friend of mine is half Iranian and his father currently lives there. I feel that much of the Iranian citizenry would join the US in overthrowing the Iranian leadership. But they will be hard pressed to do it on their own, without assistance.

That's why US thought when they invaded Iraq, thinking that its citizens will be so grateful to see Saddam gone they'd help US troops when they got there. 5+ years later, we still see insurgency in Iraq.
 
That's why US thought when they invaded Iraq, thinking that its citizens will be so grateful to see Saddam gone they'd help US troops when they got there. 5+ years later, we still see insurgency in Iraq.

Iraq and Iran are 2 totally different countries with very different populations. You can't equate the successes or failures of one to the other. It's not comparing apples and apples.
 
Great piece from Thomas Sowell on Obama/Iran. In case you're unfamiliar, Thomas Sowell is one of the leading economic minds of the United States and a highly educated and insightful individual.

Oh, and it's from Townhall.com, so go ahead and discredit the piece simply based on the source. I know that's easy to do.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/06/03/irrelevant_apologies?page=full&comments=true

It is amazing how seriously the media are taking Senator Barack Obama's latest statement about the latest racist rant from the pulpit of the church he has attended for 20 years. But neither that statement nor the apology for his rant by Father Michael Pfleger really matters, one way or the other. Nor does Senator Obama's belated resignation from that church.

For any politician, what matters is not his election year rhetoric, or an election year resignation from a church, but the track record of that politician in the years before the election.

Yet so many people are so fascinated by Barack Obama's rhetorical skills that they don't care about his voting record in the U.S. Senate, in the Illinois state senate, the causes that he has chosen to promote over the years, or the candidate's personal character and values, as revealed by his actions and associations.

Despite clever spin from Obama's supporters about avoiding "guilt by association," much more is involved than casual association with people like Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger.

In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers' money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger's work. Giving someone more than 300 grand is not just some tenuous, coincidental association.

Are Barack Obama's views shown by what he says during an election year or by what he has been doing for decades before?

The complete contrast between Obama's election year image as a healer of divisions and his whole career of promoting far-left grievance politics, in association with America-haters like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, are brushed aside by his supporters who talk about getting back to "the real issues."

There is nothing more real than a man's character and values. The track record of what he has actually done is far more real than anything he says, however elegantly he says it.

There is no office where the character and values of the person in that office matter more than the office of President of the United States. He holds the destiny of 300 million Americans in his hands and the fate of generations yet unborn.

That was never more true than today, with Iran moving ever closer to a nuclear bomb, while the United Nations wrings its hands and Congress fritters away its time on everything from steroids in sports to earmarks for pet projects back home.

Does anyone seriously consider what it would mean for Iran to have nuclear weapons? They are already supplying terrorists with the means of killing people in other countries, including killing American troops in Iraq.

Senator Obama has been downplaying the Iran threat, saying that they are just "a small country," not like the Soviet Union. The people who flew planes into the World Trade Center were an even smaller group than the Iranian government.

Half a dozen terrorists like that with nuclear weapons would be a bigger danger than the Soviet Union ever was, because the Soviet leaders were not suicide bombers. They could be deterred by the threat of what we would do to Moscow if they attacked New York.

You cannot deter suicidal fanatics. They are not going to stop unless they get stopped. Rhetoric is not going to do it.

Not only Senator Obama, but too many other Americans, seem to have no concept of the seething hatred that can lead people to destroy their own lives in order to lash out at others.

But terrorists have been doing this repeatedly, not only in Iraq and in Israel, but in other countries around the world-- including the United States on 9/11.

Have we already forgotten how the Palestinians were cheering in the streets over the news of the attack on the World Trade Center? How videotapes of sadistic beheadings of innocent people by terrorists have found an eager audience in the Middle East?

Are we going to leave our children hostages to hate-filled sadists with nuclear weapons? Are we to rely on Barack Obama's rhetoric to protect them?

Senator Obama's foreign policy seems to be somewhere between Rodney King's "Can't we just get along?" and Alfred E. Neuman's "What, me worry?"
 
I thought it was the part of the Koran that talks about killing the infidels and not being satisfied until the entire world is under Muslim rule, as well as the mosques that teach that being a martyr is the highest honor one can attain before meeting one's 72 virgins.

Sorry, I'm not willing to accept any responsibility for 9/11. None. Not at all. Zero.

Our chickens did not "come home to roost." We didn't bring about 9/11. Radical Islamic jihadists did. And we're lucky there has yet to be another attack of that magnitude on this great nation.

hahaha do you take like a course in Jingoism?
do you actually know of the US relationship with the SAME EXACT nutjobs that you now decry, the active relationship that financed their wars and the fact that the US pretty much put them in power, not only that, but after seeing what these cats were capable of doing during the Afghan war when it came to foreigners on their soil?

they put military bases all over the damned middle east.
and, while we are talking about "responsibility" did you know that the US was instrumental in pushing back democracy in Iran, so much so that Madeleine Albright admitted in 2000 that the US/CIA financed and planned "operation Ajax" what was operation Ajax you ask? why the plan to overthrow the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government of Iran, to install a Pro-west ( and we all know that this doesn't mean pro-Mexico) Dictator, that's right, the US super-awesome bastion of freedom and democracy admits to having installed a dictator, a move which has been credited as a more than considerable contribution to the rise of Islamic extremism in Iran.

so while YOU not knowing history might not be ready to " accept responsibility" those of us that actually read about stuff that happened in the past (that's history BTW) know better.
see, it's not just about the Koran, if any other superpower removed a democratically elected official and replaced him with a pro-them dictator you would be calling for their heads on a platter.
let's see how objective you can be about this.

btw the reason for operation Ajax ( for those of you at home, the removal of the elected official and the installment of a dictator) was OIL!

oh Mr Sparkle, there you go again with your paranoid delusions right?
except both the British and the Americans agreed that this was about Iran nationalizing their oil production, so in effect the US was instrumental in removing the only democratic government the region ever had just so the Brits could have their oil concession back.

yay history.

you'll notice the Koran and the Virgins had nothing to do with it.:cwink:

 
Great piece from Thomas Sowell on Obama/Iran. In case you're unfamiliar, Thomas Sowell is one of the leading economic minds of the United States and a highly educated and insightful individual.

Oh, and it's from Townhall.com, so go ahead and discredit the piece simply based on the source. I know that's easy to do.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/06/03/irrelevant_apologies?page=full&comments=true

isn't he also a conservative commentator that has spoken against gay marriage, social security (in one article he actually chastises activists for speaking against child labor in Ecuador, because hey, child labor is were the poor get their money!) I mean, just so you know where this cat is coming from.

here I found some neat quotes to offer some insight into this cat's perspective

* "Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face."

* "The big divide in this country is not between Democrats and Republicans, or women and men, but between talkers and doers."

* “Liberals seem to assume that, if you don't believe in their particular political solutions, then you don't really care about the people that they claim to want to help”

* “One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain”

* "'Global warming' is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible."

yeah.....uh...he seems real balanced.
 
wow, and no one complains about those statements?
jeeeeez one sided much.....?
 
well yeah.
you got me there, it's just weird that one is all like "WTF? Israel!?"
I mean, I know a lot of Jews, and I have been privy to some horror stories that would give Eli Roth a *****, but still, that kind of stuff should only be said by "them" otherwise, how the hell do I tell the two types of people apart?
 
The thing is, Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria with its own air strikes, why would Americans need to be involved? Iran doesn't match Israel's military strength, why should Bush worry yet? If there are irrefutable evidences of designs found for the development of weapons, it may be another issue. That would mean a UN use of sanctions, something developed to handle the issue. Besides if there is any chance of a nuclear exchange with Iran and Israel, does anyone recall the Israel is confirmed to have something like 75-400 warheads? They are not members of any non-poliferation treaty, Israel has full ability to defend or counter attack a nuclear strike. America is only involved for its own interests. As Washington addressed in his farewell speech advising not to become entangled in extensive foreign agreements, funding a nation is fine to do so without being militarily involved.
 
The thing is, Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria with its own air strikes, why would Americans need to be involved? Iran doesn't match Israel's military strength, why should Bush worry yet? If there are irrefutable evidences of designs found for the development of weapons, it may be another issue. That would mean a UN use of sanctions, something developed to handle the issue. Besides if there is any chance of a nuclear exchange with Iran and Israel, does anyone recall the Israel is confirmed to have something like 75-400 warheads? They are not members of any non-poliferation treaty, Israel has full ability to defend or counter attack a nuclear strike. America is only involved for its own interests. As Washington addressed in his farewell speech advising not to become entangled in extensive foreign agreements, funding a nation is fine to do so without being militarily involved.

A member of the IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies), a policy think-tank, stated yesterday that Iran's nuclear centrifuges are strategically located in areas that would prevent the Israeli military from destroying them all without US backing. Pretty sure there's a reason that they set up their "peaceful" nuclear program in such a fashion for a reason.
 
I'm thinking that they don't want their nuclear centrifuges destroyed by Israel?
just a thought.
 
A member of the IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies), a policy think-tank, stated yesterday that Iran's nuclear centrifuges are strategically located in areas that would prevent the Israeli military from destroying them all without US backing. Pretty sure there's a reason that they set up their "peaceful" nuclear program in such a fashion for a reason.

Because they trust us more than they trust the Israelis? Because they don't want people bombing their sh!$?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"