BF2S Forums Iran-Obama, welcome to reality.

Damn, Dilbert-x beat me to it

People have a distorted view of how Americans really feel... or even care about right now. These things seem to be blown wildly out of proportion across the pond. The majority of us aren't even aware of the recent news. I have yet to meet one American irl who has said "wipe Iran off of the map". In fact we were rallying behind the people of Iran when they were being beaten and arrested in the streets a few months ago.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I for one am glad we're taking the cheaper solution on this one... nothing like blowing another trillion dollars out your ass because you wanna walk like a cowboy. And at least we're not going to get the pitch of a lying door to door salesman on this one.... After all we've learned a bit since the run up to the Iraq war and it goes like this.

[url](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A)[/url]

We went to war because GB wanted to walk like a cowboy? Bush derangement syndrome strikes again. Sometimes I envy the simple world.

ATG even get's it closer than you, and he's a self proclaimed conspiracy nutter. Carter, Reagan, GHB, Clinton, and GWB all helped create a policy that made war an Iraq invasion palatable.

If the simple solution is cheap and simple.... what more could you ask for. BTW when you are talking about building international support, then yes the deranged cowboy syndrome is important because that's how other people in the world saw Bush. PBO instills much more confidence in our international neighbors and thus makes it harder other world leaders to dismiss him. And you can't deny that the Iraq war was promoted with false intelligence and the costs of that war to this country are unacceptable.

Its funny that the nutters who like to play tin soldiers are usually the real pro business types. Perhaps the next time they beat the war drums maybe we will get lucky and they will do a simple cost benefit analysis. From what I seen about the Iraq war, we spent a $1 trillion plus and have very little to show for it. Look at afganistan, what the hell are we going to get out of there, dry dust, do you know how many generations of occupation it will take to change the minsets of the people over there? Here's a hint... Columbus hit the new world in 1492 and I guarantee you Indians still have their culture and consider everyone else invaders.

Same with Iran, what is the cost benefit anaylsis of invading Iran. IMO its not worth it and if PBO is building support to keep the nutters in Iran contained, and our bow legged cowboys at home are angry about... I say save us the drama and go get cowboyed up metro sexual style, get drunk, line dance and start a fight. Hell, may be the govt should pay their bar bill and give them public option health care to patch them up, it will save us money.


Waging war is like partying... its all fun until the you get the bill and see the damage. "fool me... can't get fooled again"

You really do live in Truthistan You're absolutely correct when you say the cost-benefit analysis would've shown that invading Iraq would provide nothing in return. I think they were banking on taking over oil exports until the cost of the invasion was repaid. Yeah, that didn't work out.

The reality is that he's going to do nothing -save serve the populous hollow rhetoric as Iran finishes their weapon.  Save yourselves Israel.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I for one am glad we're taking the cheaper solution on this one... nothing like blowing another trillion dollars out your ass because you wanna walk like a cowboy. And at least we're not going to get the pitch of a lying door to door salesman on this one.... After all we've learned a bit since the run up to the Iraq war and it goes like this.

[url](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A)[/url]

We went to war because GB wanted to walk like a cowboy? Bush derangement syndrome strikes again. Sometimes I envy the simple world.

ATG even get's it closer than you, and he's a self proclaimed conspiracy nutter. Carter, Reagan, GHB, Clinton, and GWB all helped create a policy that made war an Iraq invasion palatable.

If the simple solution is cheap and simple.... what more could you ask for. BTW when you are talking about building international support, then yes the deranged cowboy syndrome is important because that's how other people in the world saw Bush. PBO instills much more confidence in our international neighbors and thus makes it harder other world leaders to dismiss him. And you can't deny that the Iraq war was promoted with false intelligence and the costs of that war to this country are unacceptable.

Its funny that the nutters who like to play tin soldiers are usually the real pro business types. Perhaps the next time they beat the war drums maybe we will get lucky and they will do a simple cost benefit analysis. From what I seen about the Iraq war, we spent a $1 trillion plus and have very little to show for it. Look at afganistan, what the hell are we going to get out of there, dry dust, do you know how many generations of occupation it will take to change the minsets of the people over there? Here's a hint... Columbus hit the new world in 1492 and I guarantee you Indians still have their culture and consider everyone else invaders.

Same with Iran, what is the cost benefit anaylsis of invading Iran. IMO its not worth it and if PBO is building support to keep the nutters in Iran contained, and our bow legged cowboys at home are angry about... I say save us the drama and go get cowboyed up metro sexual style, get drunk, line dance and start a fight. Hell, may be the govt should pay their bar bill and give them public option health care to patch them up, it will save us money.

Waging war is like partying... its all fun until the you get the bill and see the damage. "fool me... can't get fooled again"

Support is for people who need it. Participants included Spain, the UK, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Poland, and many more after the initial invasion. The benefits of having another democratic partner in the region could pay dividends well beyond our initial investment. The goal is obviously_? not short term. The problem with judging the actions of a conflict that is less than a decade old is that we lack historical context. Americans needed a cowboy confident leader after 2001. That is the unsettling truth they don't like to admit 8 years later.

The Carter doctrine got the ball rolling, Bill Clinton and all the other dems who were privy to the same exact intelligence set this path as well.

Combine that with the uncertainty we felt after 9/11 and you can see this is much more than just a man walking around.. "partying". We know Saddam was deliberately misleading the world, trying to seem bigger than he was. That strategy backfired on him, big time.


Again, who is saying invade Iran?

The guy is dead set on blowing up Israel AND the US.

Prove it.

There really is no argument against that.

Of course not, because its not true.

Kmarion wrote:

An invasion/attack would unite a divided Iran against the west.

This.

The Iran problem is going to solve itself without us getting involved. They're teetering on the brink of a popular revolution (the good kind) anyway. Us getting tough on Iran just gives Amendajajajajedbad sound bites to play on the state owned television to scare the ignorant masses. Same with North Korea. They rule by fear. The difference between the two nations is that Iran has a large group of young people who have gone to school in the US or adopted parts of western culture. The Big Mac will bring down the Iranian government without us lifting a finger.

“[America] should understand that the message from the peoples of the region … is manifested in a single slogan. With clenched fists here the people of Eslamshahr [the location of the speech], as the representatives of the Iranian people and all the nations of the region, shout their slogans. [The crowd chants, “Death to America!”]—Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Radio 1, Oct. 20, 2006)

“We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbors of the nations in this region. We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt. It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals [Israel]. … This is an ultimatum.”—Iranian

No he did not say wipe Israel off the map, but the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly, as "be eliminated from the pages of history."  Thats not threatening is it.

Do you really think this guy has good intentions?  I mean, REALLY believe it?

Do you really think this guy has good intentions?  I mean, REALLY believe it?

It seems pretty obvious, and having spoken to Iranians I worked with, that Iran feels the need for nuclear weapons as a deterrent to foreign aggression.

Israel has nukes, their neighbour - Iraq - just got butt-raped by a nuclear power without UNSC authorisation.
They've heard the anti-Iran rhetoric building in the US, and have seen the PNAC plan.

Why wouldn't they be nervous?

OTOH There's nothing like perception of a foreign threat to unite a people behind a govt - however corrupt and self-serving it is.
You're American - you should know that.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-29 22:25:54)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Do you really think this guy has good intentions?  I mean, REALLY believe it?

It seems pretty obvious, and having spoken to Iranians I worked with, that Iran feels the need for nuclear weapons as a deterrent to foreign aggression.

Israel has nukes, their neighbour - Iraq - just got butt-raped by a nuclear power without UNSC authorisation.
They've heard the anti-Iran rhetoric building in the US, and have seen the PNAC plan.

Why wouldn't they be nervous?

OTOH There's nothing like perception of a foreign threat to unite a people behind a govt - however corrupt and self-serving it is.
You're American - you should know that.

So you recognize that their program is for weapons?

The diplomacy crowd is louder than the war drums in the US. This is apparent in how we have been voting for the last 6-7 years.

As an Iranian I would be more nervous looking at my own governments actions. They finally get the opportunity for open dialogue and they respond by going on a rocket launch tangent. It would be obvious to me that my leaders NEED to feel threatened. Or at least give the impression of an impending invasion.

Kmarion wrote:

Combine that with the uncertainty we felt after 9/11 and you can see this is much more than just a man walking around.. "partying". We know Saddam was deliberately misleading the world, trying to seem bigger than he was. That strategy backfired on him, big time.


Again, who is saying invade Iran?

I would say that history has already shown that the neo-cons under Bush took advantage of 9/11 uncertainty to lie to the public and to attack Iraq and have cost the taxpayers $1 trillion plus and counting. Now spreading democracy might be a noble idea, but I'm going to object when its done with my tax money. As for dead Saddam, he was pretty much neutered and bottled up in his country and eventually he would have been gone without the war.

Same with Iran, if their peaceful nuclear program starts to be used to create nuclear weapons, then more options should be on the table, until then the war hawks should keep it in their pants, and keep their hands out of my pockets.



As for "whose talking about invasion of Iran."
See there is script that's already been written and history has already shown it to us
look at Clinton, he missed a chance to take out Osama. Then he fires missiles into Afghanistan, and the GOP complains that the missiles cost $10 million a piece. Then under Bush we send in special forces and bomb the Taliban into Pakistan. AND now we have boots on the ground and we are going to spend even more taxpayers money on what is becoming a quagmire under PBO.

If we apply our history script and update it to current events we get something like this
if PBO says diplomacy, the war hawks will say use threat of military action
if PBO says use military threat, the war hawks will say bomb baby bomb
if PBO bombs the sites, the war hawks will say we need boots  on the ground
if PBO says we need boots on the ground, the war hawks will say "gimme my fat supply contract" and "what quagmire?"


That's using history. Like I said we've been down this road before so why would our experience in Iran be any different if we took the war hawk approach again?

International support is building and IMO that's a reality I welcome.


BTW if we really did not want IRanians or any other country we don't like from building nukes, then we really should have banned students from those countries from coming to the US to learn the engineering necessary to build these things. We should have gotten other countries to do the same.  But we didn't and that cat left the bag along time ago.  They have the knowledge base now, and frankly peaceful nuclear power is an option the entire world is going to need in the future, saving some scientist pulls out a miracle hocus pocus cold fusion reactor out of their ass. I only wish PBO would get on with it and start building nuclear plants across the US. Did you know the cost of one nuclear plant is approxiamtely $10 billion. For the stupid $1 trillion wall street bailout we could have build 100 nuclear plants, basically two in every state (I'm sure glad those "goldamn" sachs guys got their bonuses instead). IMO the Iranians may be onto something.


Anyway, its all a lot of talk about nothing. if Iran gets a bomb it will be a firecracker compared to the US and Russia nukes. If Iran tries to use a nuke, they won't be around to see their bomb drop, and they know it.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Combine that with the uncertainty we felt after 9/11 and you can see this is much more than just a man walking around.. "partying". We know Saddam was deliberately misleading the world, trying to seem bigger than he was. That strategy backfired on him, big time.


Again, who is saying invade Iran?

I would say that history has already shown that the neo-cons under Bush took advantage of 9/11 uncertainty to lie to the public and to attack Iraq and have cost the taxpayers $1 trillion plus and counting. Now spreading democracy might be a noble idea, but I'm going to object when its done with my tax money. As for dead Saddam, he was pretty much neutered and bottled up in his country and eventually he would have been gone without the war.

Same with Iran, if their peaceful nuclear program starts to be used to create nuclear weapons, then more options should be on the table, until then the war hawks should keep it in their pants, and keep their hands out of my pockets.



As for "whose talking about invasion of Iran."
See there is script that's already been written and history has already shown it to us
look at Clinton, he missed a chance to take out Osama. Then he fires missiles into Afghanistan, and the GOP complains that the missiles cost $10 million a piece. Then under Bush we send in special forces and bomb the Taliban into Pakistan. AND now we have boots on the ground and we are going to spend even more taxpayers money on what is becoming a quagmire under PBO.

If we apply our history script and update it to current events we get something like this
if PBO says diplomacy, the war hawks will say use threat of military action
if PBO says use military threat, the war hawks will say bomb baby bomb
if PBO bombs the sites, the war hawks will say we need boots  on the ground
if PBO says we need boots on the ground, the war hawks will say "gimme my fat supply contract" and "what quagmire?"


That's using history. Like I said we've been down this road before so why would our experience in Iran be any different if we took the war hawk approach again?

International support is building and IMO that's a reality I welcome.


BTW if we really did not want IRanians or any other country we don't like from building nukes, then we really should have banned students from those countries from coming to the US to learn the engineering necessary to build these things. We should have gotten other countries to do the same.  But we didn't and that cat left the bag along time ago.  They have the knowledge base now, and frankly peaceful nuclear power is an option the entire world is going to need in the future, saving some scientist pulls out a miracle hocus pocus cold fusion reactor out of their ass. I only wish PBO would get on with it and start building nuclear plants across the US. Did you know the cost of one nuclear plant is approxiamtely $10 billion. For the stupid $1 trillion wall street bailout we could have build 100 nuclear plants, basically two in every state (I'm sure glad those "goldamn" sachs guys got their bonuses instead). IMO the Iranians may be onto something.


Anyway, its all a lot of talk about nothing. if Iran gets a bomb it will be a firecracker compared to the US and Russia nukes. If Iran tries to use a nuke, they won't be around to see their bomb drop, and they know it.

Nuclear secrets will eventually be well known world wide. Look at how many countries now hold the technology in just 60 or so years. Banning students from nuclear countries is completely pointless. I am not for spreading democracy (militarily). The idea seems to contradict itslef. However, the reality is that our leaders, neo-cons and dems alike, decided to take a pro-active position in the region. Saddam gone without a war? Extremely unlikely. He would have spent his dieing days in power and his sons, in all of their brutality, would have eventually taken over.

Iran needs to keep it in their pants as well. Like I said it does them no good to slap the world community in the face when they are willing to talk with them.

Who specifically is talking about invasion? Give me something truly meaningful. This is just rumor mongering continued from the GB years as far as I'm concerned. FFS how many times did we here in this forum that Bush was going in? If there is to be military action it would be a global majority consensus.

We are in a completely different situation now. Americans are worried about having a job.. the images of their fellow citizens jumping out of skyscrapers and exploding buildings is fading. We are engaged in Afghanistan and are cleaning up in Iraq. We have elected a leader who is committed to seeking world approval before doing anything, if anything at all.