u.s. invades iran Options

[GOB]

well, not yet, but probably before 2010.







http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates

SEVILLE, Spain - Serial numbers and markings on explosives used in Iraq provide "pretty good" evidence that Iran is providing either weapons or technology for militants there, Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted Friday.

Offering some of the first public details of evidence the military has collected, Gates said, "I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found," that point to Iran.

At the same time, however, he said he was somewhat surprised that recent raids by coalition and Iraqi forces in Iraq swept up some Iranians.

this is just the beginning of "evidence" the government is going to feed us until the american public is convinced that we need to attack.

[Billy]

I think we should in my opinion. But that's easy for me to say being that I'm not the one who has to actually fight the war.

[impala454]

yeah if we keep it up eventually we'll have this stuff all knocked out. Iran helps anti-US peeps in Iraq, we hit Iran, if anyone's helping them we hit them, etc. eventually we'll get to the heart of the hate and take em out.

[Seussninja]

yeah if we keep it up eventually we'll have this stuff all knocked out. Iran helps anti-US peeps in Iraq, we hit Iran, if anyone's helping them we hit them, etc. eventually we'll get to the heart of the hate and take em out.

There is no "heart of the hate", it's like a cancer, it spreads. We attack Iran, we gain new enemies. We attack those enemies, we gain new enemies, etc.

[The Fanatic]

And we thought Iraq was fun...

Iran's terrain is mountainous. Add in a united fanatical population (double Iraq) and you have yourself one hell of a war! At least the Iraqis are split into three different groups...

This post has been edited by Dr. Gonzo: Feb 9 2007, 12:23 PM

[chook]

i think they should have a dmz between the countries and blast anything that is inside it. Fuck invading them.

[impala454]

There is no "heart of the hate", it's like a cancer, it spreads. We attack Iran, we gain new enemies. We attack those enemies, we gain new enemies, etc.

so who would come to iran's aid?

[FORSAKENR320]

so who would come to iran's aid?

the french

[GOB]

so who would come to iran's aid?

nobody would need to. we would be spending too much time trying not to hurt anyone's feelings to do anything correctly (like we are now).

[Seussninja]

so who would come to iran's aid?

Syria? Lebanon? I could go on.

[impala454]

Syria? Lebanon? I could go on.

so who would come to their aid?

(i hope you see what i'm getting at. if not, please continue )

[Seussninja]

so who would come to their aid?

(i hope you see what i'm getting at. if not, please continue )

Are you saying we should just take on the entire middle east on our own? Man I might as well put my degree down and pick up a rifle.

[impala454]

no i'm saying we could easily take the middle east one country at a time though.

[Testm0nkey]

so you think we did a smashing job with the middle east so far? and taking over the middle east one country at a time would never happen

[pysex]

i think we should all come to terms with the fact that ww3 is inevitable and in our near future

[Psykopath]

no i'm saying we could easily take the middle east one country at a time though.

would never happen.

They would see the inevitable, and most likely unite in at least some loose fashion against the American invaders....which is what we'd be: An invading force, not a "liberating force."

Do you really believe that we could take out an entire region with zero consequences, even if we fought the war "like we need to" (taken from Charlie)? I think peripheral states (even our 'allies') might get a weeeee bit interested in/pissed at our imperialistic advances, like, oh I don't know...Pakistan, India, CHINA, etc....

Even other Western states would not allow such advances after the cluster-fuck that is Iraq. Thank the Bush Administration for fucking American foreign policy over for quite some time.

[chook]

Syria? Lebanon? I could go on.

just like they help palestinians

[FORSAKENR320]

Thank the Bush Administration for fucking American foreign policy over for quite some time.

i think clinton did a better job of that

[Psykopath]

i think clinton did a better job of that

How so?

[FORSAKENR320]

How so?

democrats are pussies

[Psykopath]

democrats are pussies

Just like how a certain Republican joined the Texas Air National Guard to 'defend the skies of Texas' from the threat of Vietnam!

AMERICA...FUCK YEAH!

[FORSAKENR320]

Just like how a certain Republican joined the Texas Air National Guard to 'defend the skies of Texas' from the threat of Vietnam!

AMERICA...FUCK YEAH!

i prefer to convince you through the art of impromptu song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0f2dHJ6A18



i'm not defending bush, just tired of everyone blaming him for everything. at least he did join the military, as sucky as it is. after all, the rest of america was being a bunch of dirty drug using hippies at the time.

[The Fanatic]

i at least he did join the military, as sucky as it is. after all, the rest of america was being a bunch of dirty drug using hippies at the time.

If you got bad news, you wanna kick them blues; cocaine.
When your day is done and you wanna run; cocaine.
She dont lie, she dont lie, she dont lie; cocaine.

[The Fanatic]

democrats are pussies

Clinton was the best republican president this country has ever had

[impala454]

would never happen.

They would see the inevitable, and most likely unite in at least some loose fashion against the American invaders....which is what we'd be: An invading force, not a "liberating force."

unite?!?!?!?! you've absolutely got to be joking. those people over there will never unite on anything.

and we wouldn't be going there to liberate jack shit, we'd be going into iran to fuck them up for helping the insurgents.

[Testm0nkey]

believe it or not but most americans still need a plausible but not necessarily true reason for spending a huge amount of peoples lives and money on war. invading a country purely to "fuck them up" out of revenge would not work and be more political suicide.

and i believe he meant unite as in united in their common hatred and desire to destroy us nearly it not totally above all else

[impala454]

believe it or not but most americans still need a plausible but not necessarily true reason for spending a huge amount of peoples lives and money on war. invading a country purely to "fuck them up" out of revenge would not work and be more political suicide.

and i believe he meant unite as in united in their common hatred and desire to destroy us nearly it not totally above all else

is having another country help kill american troops not reason enough???

and i dunno i seriously doubt those people will ever unite on anything. hell, we're over there right now and they're still killing each other way more than us.

[Psykopath]

If they saw us invading other countries in the region purely to "fuck them up" (aren't you the brilliant little diplomat!) then you bet your ass they'd form at least a loose coalition with the common goal of ending the American threat...It's a coalition that wouldn't last long beyond stopping the American advance, but it'd be there.

So, Chuck (Impala): You seriously want another war? Are you willing to enlist instead of just cheering on the front lines from your recliner via clips from Fox News?

[The Fanatic]

Not that I disagree with you completely

BUT

Impala has a point

All you have to do is look at history

[Psykopath]

Not that I disagree with you completely

BUT

Impala has a point

All you have to do is look at history

I have looked at history...

Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War...remember those? Coalitions of Arabs states formed against the "perceived threat" of Israel (Not much has changed in that arena...uggh).

[pysex]

I have looked at history...

Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War...remember those? Coalitions of Arabs states formed against the "perceived threat" of Israel (Not much has changed in that arena...uggh).

Somehow I think it all began with one muslim suibomber.

[impala454]

So, Chuck (Impala): You seriously want another war?

oh no, never said I wanted war, but when another country is aiding killing our troops we can't sit back and let em.

[jonathan83]

I have looked at history...

Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War...remember those? Coalitions of Arabs states formed against the "perceived threat" of Israel (Not much has changed in that arena...uggh).

six-day war... totally badass. only a miracle could make something like that happen.

[pebkac]

oh no, never said I wanted war, but when another country is aiding killing our troops we can't sit back and let em.

Which there's no clear evidence of.

Methinks the Bush administration is using Iran as a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq.

This post has been edited by pebkac: Feb 13 2007, 10:06 AM

[impala454]

Which there's no clear evidence of.

Methinks the Bush administration is using Iran as a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq.

you can start making this as ambiguous as you want. i didn't mention Iran. I simply said if another country is aiding in killing our troops we can't sit back and let them. whether or not Iran is helping remains to be seen. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they were.

[The Fanatic]

I have looked at history...

Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War...remember those? Coalitions of Arabs states formed against the "perceived threat" of Israel (Not much has changed in that arena...uggh).

What does Arab aggression against Israel have to do with US aggression against an Shiite fundamentalist Persian Islamic state? Remember, the last thing that countries like Saudi Arabia want are fundamentalist regimes taking over.

I doubt Islamic states themselves would aid Iran. However, it COULD destabilize the Islamic population around the middle east even more.

This post has been edited by Dr. Gonzo: Feb 13 2007, 12:42 PM

[GOB]

I doubt Islamic states themselves would aid Iran. However, it COULD destabilize the Islamic population around the middle east even more.

this is also assuming that the area is already somewhat stable. stability can't exist in areas where there are no jobs and everybody except the top .5% is illiterate. the only "control" in that entire area is a result of brute force and blind faith. it's all they understand.

arab aggression against israel is ridiculously unfounded. israel's only reason for hitting back, originally, was so they wouldn't be wiped off the map (though today it's not as clear, or even the case anymore).

our reason for going after afghanistan was retaliatory (iraq was just a bonus ). it's pretty much a mirror, except one side uses dynamite and the other eats dynamite for breakfast.

[The Fanatic]

this is also assuming that the area is already somewhat stable. stability can't exist in areas where there are no jobs and everybody except the top .5% is illiterate. the only "control" in that entire area is a result of brute force and blind faith. it's all they understand.

arab aggression against israel is ridiculously unfounded. israel's only reason for hitting back, originally, was so they wouldn't be wiped off the map (though today it's not as clear, or even the case anymore).

our reason for going after afghanistan was retaliatory (iraq was just a bonus ). it's pretty much a mirror, except one side uses dynamite and the other eats dynamite for breakfast.

I would not say that Arab aggression against Israel was unfounded, foolish maybe. You are right, the area is already unstable. I meant unstable to the point of Islamic revolutions, like the one we saw in Iran.

[GOB]

I meant unstable to the point of Islamic revolutions, like the one we saw in Iran.

ah, well i don't disagree. mccain recently said that he thinks there could be something similar to the tet-offensive in the near future, but he probably just said that to rile people up.