May is not good enough. Potentially starting WW3 over a "may" or maybe is unacceptable."The Iranians may be responsible the conducting the attack that resulted in the murder of five American soldiers in Karbala."
Sound familiar??T Blair wrote:
Iraqi may have WMD's ready to fire within 40min's
Because it's the perfect time for them to do so. You're bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and as far as meddling in others' affairs goes, the US wins by far.ATG wrote:
Can somebody please explain to me why it is in the Iranians best interest to be picking a fight with us?
Probably for the same reason that the US thinks it's okay to kidnap European citizens, cart them off to Afghanistan and torture them.ATG wrote:
Can somebody please explain to me why it is in the Iranians best interest to be picking a fight with us?
I know they want Iraq, but if they get caught killing Americans a large portion of the U.S. population will support war against Iran.
Since when did the US did that...aardfrith wrote:
Probably for the same reason that the US thinks it's okay to kidnap European citizens, cart them off to Afghanistan and torture them.ATG wrote:
Can somebody please explain to me why it is in the Iranians best interest to be picking a fight with us?
I know they want Iraq, but if they get caught killing Americans a large portion of the U.S. population will support war against Iran.
It's fucked up and it shouldn't happen.
It's not. But then again, regardless of what they do, it is obvious that you will eventually pick a fight with them. So it doesn't really matter what they do...ATG wrote:
Can somebody please explain to me why it is in the Iranians best interest to be picking a fight with us?
Last edited by oug (2007-01-31 05:41:41)
Yep it isn't, that is why they'll carpet Iran back to the dark ages.Ottomania wrote:
its not easy to invade Iran like Iraq.
Ooh, let me try.oug wrote:
And the worst part is that if you ask, most people will be unable to put together a simple explanation for their offensive attitude.
Killing thousands more Innocent civilians who were most likely against Aminajada's (spelling) threats in the first place. Driving said peoples family and friends into the arms of the insurgency organizations who will be ready to draw the USA into an insurgency war when the ground troops go in. Quagmire number 3.Bernadictus wrote:
Yep it isn't, that is why they'll carpet Iran back to the dark ages.Ottomania wrote:
its not easy to invade Iran like Iraq.
Last edited by JahManRed (2007-01-31 06:28:41)
Would you two Patton's mind telling us why?Bernadictus wrote:
Yep it isn't, that is why they'll carpet Iran back to the dark ages.Ottomania wrote:
its not easy to invade Iran like Iraq.
You can't see the problem with everyone having nuclear weapons? Yes, it is hypocritical for some to dictate who should have them, but shouldn't we be going in the other direction?. I'm not worried so much about Iran using them but perhaps them giving them to their favorite proxy Hezzbbolah. Mutual assured destruction only works when everyone operates under the same modern rules and morals.JahManRed wrote:
Its the double standards that get me.
The US and Russia started this global nuclear deterrent strategy. Personally I think the threat of mutually assured destruction is what has kept us apart over the years. But why should Pakistan, India, UK, France, Israel and the USA have the only cover against nuclear destruction? Who makes these rules? India or Pakistan were not threatened with invasion when they developed their nukes.
It is no coincidence that Iran began developing nuclear technologies after the Iraqi Invasion.
What was to stop NATO invading Russia during the collapse of Communism when the union was in disarray? Nukes. Yes NATO probably wouldn't have invaded either way, but those nukes were an insurance policy.
Iran's neighbor was invaded on sexed up intel and while that was going on constant threats were issued to Iran. If I was an Iranian citizen I would most defiantly want my government to get us a dam insurance policy asap. The USA should be more worried about the Pakistan and Indian nuclear arsenals.
This media story is most likely more spin and propaganda designed to make the American people more ready to fund another invasion if the need arises.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-31 07:51:15)
It is so absurd that you would discredit the entire thread because of a ancillary link to a article by fox news.Ty wrote:
The question mark. The most useful tool in people being able to say whatever will draw the most viewers.
Iranian Agents Abduct & Murder U.S. Troops In Iraq!
Wait, no, what was that? Oh, it's a question mark. That means it's just media speculation in order to grab people's attention when in reality there is very little sound evidence to back up this bold statement.
You quoted Fox News in your sources ATG, so I think that my cynicism is well founded.
Last edited by ATG (2007-01-31 09:06:28)
This has happened many a time in numerous cases by many different countries. The US did not give a damn. Why all the interest in this particular case? If that's the reason, then you should consider declaring war on Turkey for having invaded Cyprus and for killing Kurds on a daily basis. Oh, and you could also consider invading Israel... you know... for the whole Palestinian thingy... (just to name a few).iamangry wrote:
They have been invading the territorial sovereignty of their neighbor for the express purpose of destabilizing it.
Orly? Granted that this is true, because neither you or I or anyone can provide any substantial evidence regarding the nationality of those people you speak of, then these actions will have taken place in a land where they have as much jurisdiction as your soldiers. So technically you will have brought this upon yourselves and can't really blame anyone but your own government because you have as much a right to be there as they have (much less declare war on an entire nation due to supposed actions of a few).iamangry wrote:
They have killed several of our soldiers execution style.
Invading Iran because of a statement would be a pre-emptive strike aka an unjustified invasion aka a crime. And of course, if you are to believe what the Iranian government says about Israel, then you must also believe their claim that their nuclear program is for energy purposes only, and thus peaceful. Also, think about it this way: Israel already has these weapons, and refuses to say so, although everybody knows that they have 'em.iamangry wrote:
They do not hide their wishes to destroy our ally Israel and have made progress in creating weapons which could obliterate Israel in under an hour.
Maybe those other countries you talk about aren't going around saying they're going to destroy another nation.oug wrote:
This has happened many a time in numerous cases by many different countries. The US did not give a damn. Why all the interest in this particular case? If that's the reason, then you should consider declaring war on Turkey for having invaded Cyprus and for killing Kurds on a daily basis. Oh, and you could also consider invading Israel... you know... for the whole Palestinian thingy... (just to name a few).iamangry wrote:
They have been invading the territorial sovereignty of their neighbor for the express purpose of destabilizing it.
iamangry wrote:
They have killed several of our soldiers execution style.
Jesus that is so retarded. We can refer to U.N. resolution 1441, what exactly are the Iranians referring to in making a case for their adventures in Iraq? The only thing they got is empty headed die-hard liberals who gleefully cheer them on as they murder Iraqis and Americans, like you.oug wrote:
Orly? Granted that this is true, because neither you or I or anyone can provide any substantial evidence regarding the nationality of those people you speak of, then these actions will have taken place in a land where they have as much jurisdiction as your soldiers. So technically you will have brought this upon yourselves and can't really blame anyone but your own government because you have as much a right to be there as they have (much less declare war on an entire nation due to supposed actions of a few).
iamangry wrote:
They do not hide their wishes to destroy our ally Israel and have made progress in creating weapons which could obliterate Israel in under an hour.
Okay, so when they test a nuke in Tel Aviv we trust you'll be here screaming " no war for oil " and blah de blah as we bomb them.oug wrote:
Invading Iran because of a statement would be a pre-emptive strike aka an unjustified invasion aka a crime. And of course, if you are to believe what the Iranian government says about Israel, then you must also believe their claim that their nuclear program is for energy purposes only, and thus peaceful. Also, think about it this way: Israel already has these weapons, and refuses to say so, although everybody knows that they have 'em.
You don't need to invade Iran to defeat them.Ottomania wrote:
its not easy to invade Iran like Iraq.
So, how do you imagine this taking place exactly? What if Hezbolah did have nukes? Why doesn't mutual destruction work for them? They from Mars or something?Kmarion wrote:
You can't see the problem with everyone having nuclear weapons? Yes, it is hypocritical for some to dictate who should have them, but shouldn't we be going in the other direction?. I'm not worried so much about Iran using them but perhaps them giving them to their favorite proxy Hezzbbolah. Mutual assured destruction only works when everyone operates under the same modern rules and morals.
They're not going around saying anything... they already did it. With your blessings.ATG wrote:
Maybe those other countries you talk about aren't going around saying they're going to destroy another nation.oug wrote:
This has happened many a time in numerous cases by many different countries. The US did not give a damn. Why all the interest in this particular case? If that's the reason, then you should consider declaring war on Turkey for having invaded Cyprus and for killing Kurds on a daily basis. Oh, and you could also consider invading Israel... you know... for the whole Palestinian thingy... (just to name a few).
oug wrote:
Orly? Granted that this is true, because neither you or I or anyone can provide any substantial evidence regarding the nationality of those people you speak of, then these actions will have taken place in a land where they have as much jurisdiction as your soldiers. So technically you will have brought this upon yourselves and can't really blame anyone but your own government because you have as much a right to be there as they have (much less declare war on an entire nation due to supposed actions of a few).
Oh yeah, UN resolution 1441, I forgot. Is that the one saying Iraq had WMDs? God, its so pathetic when the US seeks legal backup from the UN to cover its imperialist agenda...ATG wrote:
Jesus that is so retarded. We can refer to U.N. resolution 1441, what exactly are the Iranians referring to in making a case for their adventures in Iraq? The only thing they got is empty headed die-hard liberals who gleefully cheer them on as they murder Iraqis and Americans, like you.
oug wrote:
Invading Iran because of a statement would be a pre-emptive strike aka an unjustified invasion aka a crime. And of course, if you are to believe what the Iranian government says about Israel, then you must also believe their claim that their nuclear program is for energy purposes only, and thus peaceful. Also, think about it this way: Israel already has these weapons, and refuses to say so, although everybody knows that they have 'em.
Talk about pathetic... you honestly believe that Iran would do that...ATG wrote:
Okay, so when they test a nuke in Tel Aviv we trust you'll be here screaming " no war for oil " and blah de blah as we bomb them.
Pathetic.
Last edited by oug (2007-01-31 10:00:45)
Speaking only for this Christian, I'm all for less war and "live and let live". The problem is the nations who plot to attack us do not apply "live and let live" to us. Under those circumstances it's only logical to help them understand we'll pound them if they wanna play rough.Turquoise wrote:
In other words, the anti-war people are closer to Christ in that regard.... ironic...unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Both, though most Christians rarely follow that principle to the exclusion of variation.Turquoise wrote:
Are you referring to Christians or anti-war people?
Nevertheless, there are plenty of people who would just like to have less war. I'm one of those people, and I don't see how fighting Iran would be a good idea in any regard. I realize war is sometimes necessary, but Iraq wasn't, and neither is Iran.
Not a bad idea +1Turquoise wrote:
. . . their people may actually put reformists back into power. If you really want to deal with Iran in a productive way, back an insurgency within Iran. Help the reformists and moderates there overthrow the Ayatollah. That would be cheaper and more effective than actually warring against them conventionally, and.... it would be returning the favor to them, since they've been funding the insurgency in Iraq . . .
Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-01-31 10:30:31)
its time we consolidate the war in Iraq and Afghanistan by centralizing ops into Tehran.ATG wrote:
Can somebody please explain to me why it is in the Iranians best interest to be picking a fight with us?
I know they want Iraq, but if they get caught killing Americans a large portion of the U.S. population will support war against Iran.
This is a image coming soon to an Iranian city;
http://i18.tinypic.com/2efrq1c.jpg
This sucks.http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/ … tack_a.phpThe Iranians may be responsible the conducting the attack that resulted in the murder of five American soldiers in Karbala.
On January 20th, a team of twelve men disguised as U.S. soldiers entered the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, where U.S. soldiers conducted a meeting with local officials, and attacked and killed five soldiers, and wounded another three. The initial reports indicated the five were killed in the Karbala JCC, however the U.S. military has reported that four of those killed were actually removed from the center, handcuffed, and murdered.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248791,00.html ( White House Holding Back Report Detailing Iran's Meddling in Iraq )
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm ( The war with Iran has already began. )
As the USSR collapsed I for a time thought we might start to go the other way, yes. But the war on terror is no different in some respects to the cold war. We have countries like Pakistan and Ethiopia, both violators of human rights and both dictatorships siding with and carrying out incursions in to another sovereign nation under the watchful eyes of the US (the recent Ethiopian incursion was supposedly planned from the US embassy)Kmarion wrote:
You can't see the problem with everyone having nuclear weapons? Yes, it is hypocritical for some to dictate who should have them, but shouldn't we be going in the other direction?. I'm not worried so much about Iran using them but perhaps them giving them to their favorite proxy Hezzbbolah. Mutual assured destruction only works when everyone operates under the same modern rules and morals.
Doesn't saber "rattling" imply that you aren't taking the saber out and stabbing people with it? It sure seems like attacking our soldiers is saber stabbing... You might even call killing our troops an overt act of war, but who's counting?Turquoise wrote:
More saber rattling...
