GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6614

B.Schuss wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

an attack might be too risky.
not for the people that are pushing for war.  they cant wait till they have a justifiable reason to go to iran.
no offense, but sometimes I have the impression America goes to war too easily...or maybe it's just GWB, I am not sure...
why do you equate the last 8 years of US  activity to the entirety of American history?  I mean, you must be familiar with German military history over the years, how could you say America goes to war too easily?

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-04-09 13:12:49)

Parker
isteal
+1,452|6365|The Gem Saloon

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Parker wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:


Not sure

Iran wants nukes because the USA and israel are threatening to bomb them.

The US and israel are threatening to bomb Iran because they don't want them to have nukes.

Who started threatening who?  that is the question.. i say the USA started it by calling Iran part of the axis of evil back in the days.
back in the days of???
Around 2003
wait, so according to you, any problems between iran and other countries started in 2003?
is that just the time that you started watching the news and caring about politics, or are you really just that dense?
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6614
thats the second time someone has called him dense today.


make it a third, autralian, youre dense. 


no way in hell you are in your 30's man.
san4
The Mas
+311|6659|NYC, a place to live

CameronPoe wrote:

san4 wrote:

As I asked earlier in this thread, what should we talk to Iran about?
We've got nothing to offer them.
Parity of esteem. Facilitating the stabilisation of Iraq. Facilitating the stablisation of Afghanistan. Addressing the Palestine problem. Trading oil in euros. Embargoes. Energy policy. Peak oil. Atonement for past altercations (on both sides). Hisb'allah. Nuclear ambitions.

If the US attack Iran before even talking to them then frankly the US will very definitely be the bad guys. That would be just plain ignorant.

PS What did you have to offer the USSR? How does this differ? Both issues centre around ideological differences.
Iran doesn't really want Iraq to be stable. It bogs down the US military and makes a ground invasion of Iran virtually impossible. Same with the Palestinian problem--Iran wants it to continue because it keeps Israel distracted, isolated and weakened. And I think Iran is pretty happy with how Hezbollah's doing. And my impression is that the US has virtually no influence in most of Afghanistan. I'm not sure what common interests Iran and the US have with regard to oil. Trading oil in euros sounds very bad for the US with the superweak dollar.

Most of those topics are things the US wants from Iran, not the other way around. The US could theoretically relent in its efforts to have sanctions imposed on Iran. And I suppose parity of esteem and atonement for past conflicts could be discussed.

Still, I think Iran basically holds all the cards. It would just turn into the US begging Iran to cut us some slack.
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6325

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

"We should be talking to them as well," Obama told the top US General in Iraq David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker.
So he's a naive racist, whats your point ?
AutralianChainsaw
Member
+65|6169

Parker wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Parker wrote:


back in the days of???
Around 2003
wait, so according to you, any problems between iran and other countries started in 2003?
is that just the time that you started watching the news and caring about politics, or are you really just that dense?
Well we could go back to 1953 when the US overtrow an elected government and installed a brutal dictator.. or maybe when the US cut all diplomatic relation with Iran after the revolution.  Or maybe when the US supported saddam in his agressive war against Iran. 

I didn't want to go into too much details because usmarine and gunslinger are reading this thread and i want to keep it simple ya know.

And i need to find the meaning of the word "dense"  .. second time today and in french that word is not even an insult. Its like the opposive of empty.
AutralianChainsaw
Member
+65|6169

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

thats the second time someone has called him dense today.


make it a third, autralian, youre dense. 


no way in hell you are in your 30's man.
yeah i'm 33

Keep in mind that english is not my main language so maybe the wording can look like a kid of 14.

edit: and btw i don't know how old you are but you are the one who act childish by name calling everyone you disagree with.

Last edited by AutralianChainsaw (2008-04-09 19:20:36)

GorillaKing798
Too legit to quit
+48|6085|Tampa, Florida

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Parker wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Around 2003
wait, so according to you, any problems between iran and other countries started in 2003?
is that just the time that you started watching the news and caring about politics, or are you really just that dense?
Well we could go back to 1953 when the US overtrow an elected government and installed a brutal dictator.. or maybe when the US cut all diplomatic relation with Iran after the revolution.  Or maybe when the US supported saddam in his agressive war against Iran. 

I didn't want to go into too much details because usmarine and gunslinger are reading this thread and i want to keep it simple ya know.

And i need to find the meaning of the word "dense"  .. second time today and in french that word is not even an insult. Its like the opposive of empty.
Main Entry:
    dense Listen to the pronunciation of dense

Function:
    adjective

1 a: marked by compactness or crowding together of parts <dense vegetation> <dense traffic> b: having a high mass per unit volume <carbon dioxide is a dense gas
2 a: slow to understand : stupid, thickheaded <was too dense to get the joke> b: extreme <dense ignorance>
3: having between any two elements at least one element <the set of rational numbers is dense>
4: demanding concentration to follow or comprehend <dense prose>
5: having high or relatively high opacity <a dense fog> <a dense photographic negative>

I believe 2 and 4 would apply in your case.

Last edited by GorillaKing798 (2008-04-09 19:20:56)

usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6732

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

I didn't want to go into too much details because usmarine and gunslinger are reading this thread and i want to keep it simple ya know.
Yes you just sort of forgot to mention France, Germany, or the others who do not want Iran to have nukes.  You just sort of keep that out for some reason.  You won't even respond to that.  You also leave out England who gave Israel nukes thru a third party.

So until you just tell the whole story, instead of your "zomg US and Israel" bullshit, nobody will take you seriously.
AutralianChainsaw
Member
+65|6169

usmarine wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

I didn't want to go into too much details because usmarine and gunslinger are reading this thread and i want to keep it simple ya know.
Yes you just sort of forgot to mention France, Germany, or the others who do not want Iran to have nukes.  You just sort of keep that out for some reason.  You won't even respond to that.  You also leave out England who gave Israel nukes thru a third party.

So until you just tell the whole story, instead of your "zomg US and Israel" bullshit, nobody will take you seriously.
France, Germany and the others are not threatening to bomb Iran. They use Diplomacy to try to resolve the crisis.. The US and israel don't even want to talk to Iran  (except Obama) and the US and israel are the only ones who start wars these days..

I don't really know the relation between England and israel and i didnt know that they gave Israel nukes thru a third party..  i have to learn about this.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6732

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

The US and israel don't even want to talk to Iran  (except Obama) and the US and israel are the only ones who start wars these days..

I don't really know the relation between England and israel and i didnt know that they gave Israel nukes thru a third party..  i have to learn about this.
Ummm....to your first point, not really.

Your second point.  Yes, you should go learn about that.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6614

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

usmarine wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

I didn't want to go into too much details because usmarine and gunslinger are reading this thread and i want to keep it simple ya know.
Yes you just sort of forgot to mention France, Germany, or the others who do not want Iran to have nukes.  You just sort of keep that out for some reason.  You won't even respond to that.  You also leave out England who gave Israel nukes thru a third party.

So until you just tell the whole story, instead of your "zomg US and Israel" bullshit, nobody will take you seriously.
France, Germany and the others are not threatening to bomb Iran. They use Diplomacy to try to resolve the crisis.. The US and israel don't even want to talk to Iran  (except Obama) and the US and israel are the only ones who start wars these days..

I don't really know the relation between England and israel and i didnt know that they gave Israel nukes thru a third party..  i have to learn about this.
you should be a bit more versed before you start hurling insults to people that no more about the topic than you.
Tushers
Noctwisaskfirtush
+224|6655|Some where huntin in Wisconsin

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

ATG wrote:

John McCain.


Read 'em and weep.
He will bomb Iran.

You agree with that?
yes

tbh im a republican and i hate obama and clinton one clinton lies from her teeth about the 93 bosnia and some other bullshit when cnn publishes that and it makes it on the news then shes gotta be doing something wrong obama just is way to easy on people dont think hes got enough background experience to be prez
Tushers
Noctwisaskfirtush
+224|6655|Some where huntin in Wisconsin

BN wrote:

a diplomatic solution has to better than a war the us cannot afford and cannot win.

why is everyone so hell bent on "bombin' the fuck out of everyone". That just seems like the band aid approach.

Bombing the fuck out of Iraq 1.0 didn't stop Saddam (if you believe there were wmd's and links to terrorism).

Another war would destroy what america has left on any diplomatic front with most nations.

There wouldn't be any coalition of the willing.
Australia would not get involved (fool me once)
UK: there is an election coming up soonish (any time before June 2010) for Gordon Brown and considering how unpopular Iraq was...i couldn't see him going for it.
did the first time, see the powel doctrine is an unwritten law for say when we go to war we give it all we got not like nam where u had a set goal and thats it see when we went into iraq at first we gave it all we got and now its kinda went away

fuck the iraq's the iran's  fuck the shitties the the sunnies the whole islam nation seems a little wacky kill all infadels wtf is that i mean shit
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina
Diplomacy certainly works better than nation-building....
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS

Tushers wrote:

BN wrote:

a diplomatic solution has to better than a war the us cannot afford and cannot win.

why is everyone so hell bent on "bombin' the fuck out of everyone". That just seems like the band aid approach.

Bombing the fuck out of Iraq 1.0 didn't stop Saddam (if you believe there were wmd's and links to terrorism).

Another war would destroy what america has left on any diplomatic front with most nations.

There wouldn't be any coalition of the willing.
Australia would not get involved (fool me once)
UK: there is an election coming up soonish (any time before June 2010) for Gordon Brown and considering how unpopular Iraq was...i couldn't see him going for it.
did the first time, see the powel doctrine is an unwritten law for say when we go to war we give it all we got not like nam where u had a set goal and thats it see when we went into iraq at first we gave it all we got and now its kinda went away

fuck the iraq's the iran's  fuck the shitties the the sunnies the whole islam nation seems a little wacky kill all infadels wtf is that i mean shit
Wut?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6812|Cologne, Germany

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:


not for the people that are pushing for war.  they cant wait till they have a justifiable reason to go to iran.
no offense, but sometimes I have the impression America goes to war too easily...or maybe it's just GWB, I am not sure...
why do you equate the last 8 years of US  activity to the entirety of American history?  I mean, you must be familiar with German military history over the years, how could you say America goes to war too easily?
as I said, I was merely stating an impression of mine. I realize that under different presidents, America has approached these issues differently. Probably just the Texans that keep bringing out the six-shooter at every possible occasion.

But still, would you support a pre-emptive war against Iran at this time ? If not, what would need to happen for you to do so ?
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5970|...
Well seems like that change of scene I was talking about has to come really soon now doesn't it? http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04 … index.html

CNN wrote:

Bush also warned Iran against arming Shiite Muslim militants in Iraq, saying that the Islamic republic "has a choice to make."

"If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, our troops and our Iraqi partners," he said.
If he means military action by protecting American interests, well - that's going to be rough.
inane little opines
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6526

dayarath wrote:

Well seems like that change of scene I was talking about has to come really soon now doesn't it?

CNN wrote:

Bush also warned Iran against arming Shiite Muslim militants in Iraq, saying that the Islamic republic "has a choice to make."
Isn't that what Bush has been doing in Iraq himself!??!
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6693|Eastern PA

dayarath wrote:

Well seems like that change of scene I was talking about has to come really soon now doesn't it? http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04 … index.html

CNN wrote:

Bush also warned Iran against arming Shiite Muslim militants in Iraq, saying that the Islamic republic "has a choice to make."

"If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, our troops and our Iraqi partners," he said.
If he means military action by protecting American interests, well - that's going to be rough.
Especially so given that the Iranians are thought to be responsible for the recent cease-fire.

BAGHDAD — Iranian officials helped broker a cease-fire agreement Sunday between Iraq's government and radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, according to Iraqi lawmakers.

The deal could help defuse a wave of violence that had threatened recent security progress in Iraq. It also may signal the growing regional influence of Iran, a country the Bush administration accuses of providing support to terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6526

san4 wrote:

Iran doesn't really want Iraq to be stable. It bogs down the US military and makes a ground invasion of Iran virtually impossible. Same with the Palestinian problem--Iran wants it to continue because it keeps Israel distracted, isolated and weakened. And I think Iran is pretty happy with how Hezbollah's doing. And my impression is that the US has virtually no influence in most of Afghanistan. I'm not sure what common interests Iran and the US have with regard to oil. Trading oil in euros sounds very bad for the US with the superweak dollar.

Most of those topics are things the US wants from Iran, not the other way around. The US could theoretically relent in its efforts to have sanctions imposed on Iran. And I suppose parity of esteem and atonement for past conflicts could be discussed.

Still, I think Iran basically holds all the cards. It would just turn into the US begging Iran to cut us some slack.
So basically your take is 'don't bother talking' because of a presumed pointlessness? Given the alternative I frankly think an attempt is worth a go - a face to face statement of principles and grievances costs nothing. I'm sure the British felt the same about the IRA but they gave it a go and look where it got them.
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6193|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:

san4 wrote:

Iran doesn't really want Iraq to be stable. It bogs down the US military and makes a ground invasion of Iran virtually impossible. Same with the Palestinian problem--Iran wants it to continue because it keeps Israel distracted, isolated and weakened. And I think Iran is pretty happy with how Hezbollah's doing. And my impression is that the US has virtually no influence in most of Afghanistan. I'm not sure what common interests Iran and the US have with regard to oil. Trading oil in euros sounds very bad for the US with the superweak dollar.

Most of those topics are things the US wants from Iran, not the other way around. The US could theoretically relent in its efforts to have sanctions imposed on Iran. And I suppose parity of esteem and atonement for past conflicts could be discussed.

Still, I think Iran basically holds all the cards. It would just turn into the US begging Iran to cut us some slack.
So basically your take is 'don't bother talking' because of a presumed pointlessness? Given the alternative I frankly think an attempt is worth a go - a face to face statement of principles and grievances costs nothing. I'm sure the British felt the same about the IRA but they gave it a go and look where it got them.
No gurantee it'll work the same way
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6526

M.O.A.B wrote:

No gurantee it'll work the same way
No guarantee it won't!!! Poor argument.
san4
The Mas
+311|6659|NYC, a place to live

CameronPoe wrote:

san4 wrote:

Iran doesn't really want Iraq to be stable. It bogs down the US military and makes a ground invasion of Iran virtually impossible. Same with the Palestinian problem--Iran wants it to continue because it keeps Israel distracted, isolated and weakened. And I think Iran is pretty happy with how Hezbollah's doing. And my impression is that the US has virtually no influence in most of Afghanistan. I'm not sure what common interests Iran and the US have with regard to oil. Trading oil in euros sounds very bad for the US with the superweak dollar.

Most of those topics are things the US wants from Iran, not the other way around. The US could theoretically relent in its efforts to have sanctions imposed on Iran. And I suppose parity of esteem and atonement for past conflicts could be discussed.

Still, I think Iran basically holds all the cards. It would just turn into the US begging Iran to cut us some slack.
So basically your take is 'don't bother talking' because of a presumed pointlessness? Given the alternative I frankly think an attempt is worth a go - a face to face statement of principles and grievances costs nothing. I'm sure the British felt the same about the IRA but they gave it a go and look where it got them.
I generally agree that talking is an important way to make progress, so I wouldn't be really be against it. I'd be a little concerned that US-Iran talks would make it even more obvious that Iran has totally outmaneuvered the US in the middle east.

I think the main point is that the high likelihood that there would be no benefit means that "talking to Iran" should not be the cornerstone of anyone's foreign policy. *cough*Obama*cough*
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
I'd be a little concerned that US-Iran talks would make it even more obvious that Iran has totally outmaneuvered the US in the middle east.
Or maybe they've both realised they've reached stalemate.
Neither can win, Iraq is screwed.
If they'd just talked five years ago and worked out a deal, as the Iranians offered, things would probably have worked out very differently.

If it takes Obama to do it - fine, if Bush talks to the Iranians just to steal Obama's thunder and works something out by accident - fine.
Team America needs to grow up a bit.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard