I think force against Iran is inevitable, but the anti-war movement will have such a bad, untruthful spin to it. I can just see people against it for the sole reason that they think that an attack against Iran is one similar to that of Iraq.
They’ll say that just like invading Iraq wasn’t worth it and we were right, now that we’re invading Iran it will be costly, deadly, and pointless. When in reality Iran poses a much more considerable threat than Iraq ever did.
With more and more Americans growing discontent with the Iraq war it’s not hard to picture the media grouping the same feelings of the current war with those of a prospective war.
america can not possibly expect to take down Iran easily… . dont be fooled Iraq was supposed to be easy and Iran would be twice the quagmire Iraq still is. …
but then again once a draft is instated youll all be able to help out with whatever war is next. …
[quote]Navers wrote:
They’ll say that just like invading Iraq wasn’t worth it and we were right, now that we’re invading Iran it will be costly, deadly, and pointless. When in reality Iran poses a much more considerable threat than Iraq ever did.
[/quote]
Considering that Iran is about four times as large as Iraq with nearly 70 million people as opposed to Iraq’s 27 million, I think that an American invasion of Iran at this point in time is impossible.
[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
america can not possibly expect to take down Iran easily… . dont be fooled Iraq was supposed to be easy and Iran would be twice the quagmire Iraq still is. …
but then again once a draft is instated youll all be able to help out with whatever war is next. …[/quote]
We took down Iraq in just a few days. We destroyed their defenses and began rebuilding almost immediately.
Iran will be cake. All we want is to remove their nuclear capabilities. Not a war. I guess the Iranians will be the ones to choose their fate.
[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
america can not possibly expect to take down Iran easily… . dont be fooled Iraq was supposed to be easy and Iran would be twice the quagmire Iraq still is. …
but then again once a draft is instated youll all be able to help out with whatever war is next. …[/quote]
Thank god someone from New Zealand stepped in to set us straight.
9 tactical nukes (or however many reactors they have) is all we need. There will be no invasion of Iran. Hell, nuking their nukes would send a good message to the rest of the world (N.Z. included).
Can one of you peacenik douchebags explain what the U.S. could do, short of everyone converting to Islam, to make the terrorists happy?
I’m not going to church on Sunday and I’m sure as hell not planning on facing Mecca 5 times a day. Bacon is good, porkchops taste good.
Alright, just taking a poll here. What would you all think of just launching a few of ours at a couple spots just to get things started? Any takers? I say we just kick this little armegeddon BBQ into gear now instead of waiting around.
The shit’s going to happen one of these days. Nobody’s building nuke after nuke after nuke because they think they’re going to get rid of them one day. Or at least it seems like an ineffective investment to me.
And thinking we can just blow a couple little craters into Irani/Iranian soil without them getting a little pissed about it and wanting revenge is like saying Dubya himself could walk in there and cockslap them in the face and fully not expect them to get a little angry.
Tactical nukes or not, there’s no easy way out of this. If we ignore them, shit’s goin down. If we “tactically” nuke their reactors, shit’s goin down. If we invade Iraq style, well I think the pattern’s layed itself down.
I don’t think it matters which side of the fence you’re on here, we may have to face facts that there’s no way we’re getting out of this issue unscathed. There may not be any way of handling it that could be beneficial to anyone. Iran’s not going to drop their deadman switch without taking someone, maybe everyone, out with them.
Using nuclear weapons (tactical?) to destroy other nuclear weapons?
How is Iran a threat to America? Even if Iran has nuclear weapons how are they going to deliver them to continental America? They don?t have the missiles capable of reaching continental America. They don?t have the Shiite terrorist network to deliver them to continental America.
It is an old ploy, when you have domestic problems create a foreign enemy for distraction. Terrorism is a domestic problem created by immigration and multiculturalism. No amount of impotent militarism is going to fix it.
I wonder what Tehrangeles will be like once their kin are nuked? Blowback?
?It is commonly used when referring to the large number (est. 600,000) of Iranian-Americans residing in Los Angeles.?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
We took down Iraq in just a few days. We destroyed their defenses and began rebuilding almost immediately.
Iran will be cake. All we want is to remove their nuclear capabilities. Not a war. I guess the Iranians will be the ones to choose their fate.[/quote]
your view is warped… . you can not believe Iraq was WON or a success of any magnitude… . all you did was launch missles for a few days… . nothing started really happening in Iraq until months later… . youve taken more casulties and fatalities since things started rolling with the insurgency… . and if you guys cant deal with a few thousand bloody peasants with bombs and shity 80s weaponary then how can you expect to suceed with Iran… . oh sure youll be safe for the first few days of bombing the fuck out of them but as soon as troops hit the ground youll have another Iraq thats 3 times the size. …
and after all is said and done you still dont know what your fighting for. …
this is all about oil and nothing to do with terrorists who at one time worked for your own cia. …
[quote]usaffirefighter wrote:
I don’t think it matters which side of the fence you’re on here, we may have to face facts that there’s no way we’re getting out of this issue unscathed. There may not be any way of handling it that could be beneficial to anyone. Iran’s not going to drop their deadman switch without taking someone, maybe everyone, out with them.[/quote]whats that even supposed to mean? first its one thing to be building a nuclear power program… . its also another to build nuclear weapons as well… . but even if they are (lets pretend they are) they dont have the long range capabilites to hurt any one except perhaps Israel itself… . aside from the US the only people that have long range nuclear capabilites are france, israel, russia and china… . and what about india and pakistan? for some reason the very countrys that the terrorists are supposedly hiding it isnt getting any lime light? why the hell? I guess they dont have any oil. …
[quote]bluey wrote:
Using nuclear weapons (tactical?) to destroy other nuclear weapons?
How is Iran a threat to America? Even if Iran has nuclear weapons how are they going to deliver them to continental America? They don?t have the missiles capable of reaching continental America.[/quote]
So then we should wait until they actually do have the capability of a first strike? They are in fact a terrorist state. We know what terrorists states do. Also, you line of thinking is a bit simplistic as they can reach Israel easily. Do you suppose that the US should sit back and watch Isreal be decimated? Think my man, think!
When you have domestic problems? The ecomony is strong. Terrorism is not a domestic problem at least not here in the US. Have you noticed that we have had no terrorism here since 9-11? We have taken Elquida apart they are basically ineffective thanks to the US.
You really need to focus a bit more on the problem at hand: Iran with nuclear weapons!
this is all about oil and nothing to do with terrorists who at one time worked for your own cia. …
[/quote]
You have shown yourself to be nothing more than a Bush hater. I will now ask you what I ask all those who do the “it’s blood for oil” song. Prove it!
How is the US or President Bush himself gaining from the Iraq war through oil? Really, you need to lay down some facts, or basically change your tune as you make not sense!
[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
but even if they are (lets pretend they are) they dont have the long range capabilites to hurt any one except perhaps Israel itself.[/quote]
Ha ha “except Israel itself.” You are a very speical person…
[quote]I guess they dont have any oil. …
[/quote]
Again prove your contention regarding oil, or change your tune. You are seriously out of line!
[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
your view is warped… . you can not believe Iraq was WON or a success of any magnitude… . all you did was launch missles for a few days… . nothing started really happening in Iraq until months later… . youve taken more casulties and fatalities since things started rolling with the insurgency… . and if you guys cant deal with a few thousand bloody peasants with bombs and shity 80s weaponary then how can you expect to suceed with Iran… . oh sure youll be safe for the first few days of bombing the fuck out of them but as soon as troops hit the ground youll have another Iraq thats 3 times the size. …
and after all is said and done you still dont know what your fighting for. …
this is all about oil and nothing to do with terrorists who at one time worked for your own cia. …
[/quote]
All I can say is you are so wrong and so full of American hatred that you shouldn’t even be allowed to post until recieving some sort of help.
There is no point in responding to your fairy-tale logic that has us getting our asses kicked by Iraq, as well as Iran.
[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
america can not possibly expect to take down Iran easily… . dont be fooled Iraq was supposed to be easy and Iran would be twice the quagmire Iraq still is. …
but then again once a draft is instated youll all be able to help out with whatever war is next. …[/quote]
We don’t want to occupy them yet. We will end their nuclear weapons program and most likely stop at that point.
They have an address that can be hit, unlike Al-Queda. They may get 1 or 2 weapons. Israel is rumored to have 300. We have thousands. IF they hit either us or Israel or provide a nuke to a terrorist group, Iran will cease as a nation. They know that. They may have doubted Carter or Clinton would ever follow through. They don’t doubt for a minute GWB will.
Terrorists will be created regardless. Better to make sure they don’t have WMD capability. Eventually they die out. All “movements” reach a tipping point. This one will also.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
JohnGalt wrote:
After all we’ve seen, enciting further animosity would more likely lead to an ever increasing number of terrorist groups than a conventional Air/Land battle.
Your statement makes no sense. No one is talking about “enciting further animosisty”. The subject is about how to rid Iran of its nuclear technology. I could give a shit how incited the damn Iranians are. They’re the ones breaking the rules.[/quote]
No they are not. You just think they are. I think so too, but they only ones really knowing it, are the Iranians themselves.
I just think it?s funny that you think that Iran should stick to international rules or else, the Iraq war was a clear violation of intenational law and you seem to be able to live with that fact quite well.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Gl;itch.e wrote:
america can not possibly expect to take down Iran easily… . dont be fooled Iraq was supposed to be easy and Iran would be twice the quagmire Iraq still is. …
but then again once a draft is instated youll all be able to help out with whatever war is next. …
Thank god someone from New Zealand stepped in to set us straight.
9 tactical nukes (or however many reactors they have) is all we need. There will be no invasion of Iran. Hell, nuking their nukes would send a good message to the rest of the world (N.Z. included).
Can one of you peacenik douchebags explain what the U.S. could do, short of everyone converting to Islam, to make the terrorists happy?
I’m not going to church on Sunday and I’m sure as hell not planning on facing Mecca 5 times a day. Bacon is good, porkchops taste good. [/quote]
To answer your question, I do believe been asking for an end to foreign involvement in the region, not for everyone to convert. This brings me to Rainjack saying “this is a jihad”; why do you feel the need to use an arabic word? I wouldn’t fault you if you thought jihad meant “holy war”, but it doesn’t. It simply means struggle, and in the vast majority of instances, it is an internal struggle.
[quote]orion wrote:
I just think it?s funny that you think that Iran should stick to international rules or else, the Iraq war was a clear violation of intenational law and you seem to be able to live with that fact quite well.
[/quote]
That’s total bullshit and you know it. You have stated no facts only unsupported BS that you think I should belkieve becuse you said so.
I swear, what is the deal with all of these idiots spewing outright lies and trying to pass them as fact?
To be fair, no one can deal with a few thousand bloody peasants. Short of killing all the peasants, it’s practically impossible to deal with this type of war. And regarding the weapons, I’m not to familiar with what the US is using now, but have the jamming issues with M16’s been resolved? Do they still have small parts that are easily lost? Either way, AK 74s are some damn good guns.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
To answer your question, I do believe been asking for an end to foreign involvement in the region, not for everyone to convert. This brings me to Rainjack saying “this is a jihad”; why do you feel the need to use an arabic word? I wouldn’t fault you if you thought jihad meant “holy war”, but it doesn’t. It simply means struggle, and in the vast majority of instances, it is an internal struggle.[/quote]
Well when it is used by the Muslems as a definition of their war with us - I think your little Webster’s definition goes out the window.
You can use whatever term you feel is politically correct, but it is obvious to those woth a functioning brainstem that they want us destroyed, right along with Israel.
But regardless - I don’t think this problem will be solved by calling the Iranians “Inrani”, or by using the proper Arabic word for “they want to kill us and our way of life”.