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.

[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).

[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.