Author Topic: PD do you think we should go to war with Iran? (Read 1723 times)

Himu · « **on:** April 02, 2007, 01:07:01 PM »

Tell me. What do you think about this topic?

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #1 on:** April 02, 2007, 01:07:45 PM »

Himu · « **Reply #2 on:** April 02, 2007, 01:08:44 PM »

DO NOT WANT

Cheebs · « **Reply #3 on:** April 02, 2007, 01:09:13 PM »

Himu · « **Reply #4 on:** April 02, 2007, 01:09:57 PM »

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #5 on:** April 02, 2007, 01:43:53 PM »

Iran needs to be dealt with no doubt, but this is not the time. If they provoke a war - and it looks like they might try - then I would fully support action. But in terms of attacking them over British sailors, no. A similar thing happened a few years ago with China, and Colin Powell was able to diplomatically smooth out the issue.

Iran is nearly everything the administration claimed Iraq was. They have weapons of mass destruction, they support "terrorists", they are a world destabalizer. The world would indeed be a better place without Iran having access to nuclear weapons. In fact during the buildup to war many Democrats and leftists used talking points along the line of "Iraq is not the dangerous threat, NK and Iran are. But it seems like if you have weapons you don't get attacked". Well now they've changed their minds.

We are too stretched out in Iraq to possibly wage a ground war with Iran. While we could easily destroy all of Iran's nuclear capibilities with an air attack, the consequences would be huge. As a couple people have said on GAF, Iran is already in control of various proxy groups, and could easily attack the US from the inside. To make matters worse, they could totally ruin the Iraq situation. They are already an influence, but attacking them would give an excuse to really fuck things up.

So no, I do not support any unprovoked attack on Iran, nor do I believe there will be one anytime soon unless Iran begs for it. Many on the left have been predicting and almost wishing for an attack for a long time now. Scott Ritter definitively said that his sources confirmed there would be an attack on Iran in July...2005. So I'm not interested in all by this parade of fearmongering, for once coming from the left. Bush has severed many ties in the Republican party due to the mess he has created, but there is no way in hell the Republicans would sit back and let him ruin their chances in not only the presidentual race, but the house and senate races as well. Another unprovoked war would destroy the party for another decade perhaps

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #6 on:** April 02, 2007, 01:50:15 PM »

Phoenix Dark on politics gives me a headache. Phoenix Dark trolls Nintendo games is better.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #7 on:** April 02, 2007, 01:52:23 PM »

I bet you didn't even read it, and if you did I bet you'd agree with me. Unless of course you want war lolz

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #8 on:** April 02, 2007, 01:53:28 PM »

I don't have to read it. You regurgitate "moderate" conservative talking points to such an extent that I know how the post finishes by just reading the first two sentences.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #9 on:** April 02, 2007, 01:55:29 PM »

Quote from: Willco on April 02, 2007, 01:53:28 PM

I don't have to read it. You regurgitate "moderate" conservative talking points to such an extent that I know how the post finishes by just reading the first two sentences.

Yes, that's definitely the most mature and political way to look at things

Moderate conservatives are already waiting in the wings to attack Iran. So I have no idea where you're coming from

Cheebs · « **Reply #10 on:** April 02, 2007, 01:56:33 PM »

PD if they provoke a war you will support going to war with them? Explain how we will wage such a war. We have no extra troops laying around and well it may be a bit bigger than Iraq is.

Iran provoked war with us in the 70's and Carter was smart enough to not act rash. And back then we weren't bogged in another war.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #11 on:** April 02, 2007, 01:59:28 PM »

Bush Announces Iraq Exit Strategy: 'We'll Go Through Iran'

"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Defense and I have formulated a plan for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," Bush announced Monday morning. "We'll just go through Iran."

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #12 on:** April 02, 2007, 02:00:56 PM »

Depends on the provocation though. If they decide to take more hostages for instance, that's no worth war. But if they start bombing Israel or causing trouble in Iraq for istance...yeah.

Unlike Iraq the rest of the world is in agreeance on Iran. If they do something extreme there would be some support in dealing with them. But as I said, I don't think it will come to that

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #13 on:** April 02, 2007, 02:01:58 PM »

@ Iran bombing Israel! And they already funnel fighters and supplies into Iraq, who you foolin'?

Phoenix Dark lives in a fantasy world.

Cheebs · « **Reply #14 on:** April 02, 2007, 02:03:30 PM »

Ok then they "cause trouble" in Iraq. How the hell do we go to war with them?

MUCH larger country, our military is in its worst state for potential wars in like forever, and there isn't a ounce of public support at all.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #15 on:** April 02, 2007, 02:06:13 PM »

Eh, who cares. Israel and Britain will take care of 'em. All we'll have to do is lend Naval support for UK operations and share intelligence. People wasting time arguing this on the Internet are stupid.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #16 on:** April 02, 2007, 02:06:56 PM »

Quote from: Willco on April 02, 2007, 02:01:58 PM

@ Iran bombing Israel! And they already funnel fighters and supplies into Iraq, who you foolin'?

Phoenix Dark lives in a fantasy world.

I know. All I said is that there are different ways they can "provoke" action, and not all of them are worth fighting over. How is that a bad position?

Right now I don't think Bush can create a reason. With Iraq they were able to really fuck things up, and I doubt they thought it would be such a mess. I wouldn't be surprised if Wolfowitz or another PNAC junkie is somewhere bitching "well if we did Iraq right we'd have the means to attack Iran right now..." lol

Cheebs · « **Reply #17 on:** April 02, 2007, 02:08:40 PM »

Does Blair even have enough public sway left to touch Iran despite the hostages and any potential more problems to arise?

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #18 on:** April 02, 2007, 02:10:09 PM »

If you think Israel and Britian would be able to attack Iran without the US being pulled in you're lost.

Cheebs · « **Reply #19 on:** April 02, 2007, 02:12:50 PM »

The public will be 100%(ok 70% more like) against the idea in the states after the Iraq debacle barring Iran blowing up California.

If Israel/Britian are able to bring Bush aboard unless Iran directly attacks USA the GOP will be in such bad shape I couldn't even imagine.

10 years ago the public would support it if Iran "bombed" Israel. The public at large is so fucking jaded about the middle east due to Iraq the opinion unless it directly effects our homeland is now "get the fuck out of there".

Iran getting heavily involved in Iraq wouldn't change a thing. Americans don't want to get "revenge" at the Iraqi's blowing us up, the majority of the country want a full withdrawl. It would be the same with Iran.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #20 on:** April 02, 2007, 02:14:59 PM »

The public's opinion doesn't matter in that case. If Iran attacks one of our allies unprovoked, it would be our obligation to help.

As I said, the possibility of that happening is pretty low. For once I agree with Willco in terms of this being a dumb issue to argue over. It's not gonna happen

G The Resurrected · « **Reply #21 on:** April 02, 2007, 02:17:35 PM »

This is how the mighty fall. We've stretched are selfs out way too much with Iraq and were really not dealing with the real problem. The smuggling of weapons through the east from Iran and from the west with Jordan. If our fucking generals knew better they'd be stepping up on the control of the border of Iraq and not trying to micro manage the inner parts of Iraq.

I cant believe how arogant Iran is acting through this whole ordeal. They are a larger country and it would weaken our military so much so that other countries would find that weakness worth exploiting. At least that would be my fear if we got into a war with Iran. So far Iran hasnt shown any signs that its willing to listen to the international community. We know they are feeding terroism in some way and yet they want nuclear power.

GIVE ME A BREAK, I just hope the russian dont continue to help them out. Even though Russia is fast becoming a large shadow of its former self. They need the money these other countries are willing to pay. But just as sure that they wont build it someone else will. That being India or China, so Iran is getting nuclear power one way or another. That to me is not a good thing.

All we need is for some crazy turban heads blow up their land as well as others lands around there country. Especially while we have a great amount of military over in Iraq. But this whole provication with the Britons should be resolved soon. Which should be good news I hope.

Cheebs · « **Reply #22 on:** April 02, 2007, 02:19:29 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on April 02, 2007, 02:14:59 PM

The public's opinion doesn't matter in that case. If Iran attacks one of our allies unprovoked, it would be our obligation to help.

Hypothetical situation. If the Iran kidnapping situation happened instead of under Carter but under Bush post-9/11 but pre-Iraq War(or when the Iraq war was seen as a "success" still) do you think Bush would have attacked?

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #23 on:** April 02, 2007, 02:25:50 PM »

Quote from: Cheebs on April 02, 2007, 02:19:29 PM

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on April 02, 2007, 02:14:59 PM
The public's opinion doesn't matter in that case. If Iran attacks one of our allies unprovoked, it would be our obligation to help.

Hypothetical situation. If the Iran kidnapping situation happened instead of under Carter but under Bush post-9/11 but pre-Iraq War(or when the Iraq war was seen as a "success" still) do you think Bush would have attacked?

No. Bush knows far more about Iran's true power than we do. In some ways Iran is quite untouchable; the only country that comes close would be Saudi Arabia in that sense, maybe China. Iran could make the US enter 24 territory, and the administration knows that lol

Captured sailors is not the needed excuse for war. And in fact, it happening pre-Iraq War would mean that Powell would still be in the administration, and as he did with China I truly think he could do with Iran

Cheebs · « **Reply #24 on:** April 02, 2007, 02:29:26 PM »

My final view on the Iran situation is Bush has little over a year left in terms of any sway whatsoever he has on the world community as president, he won't start another war in which he will have almost no time to manage. Plus even though Cheney may want it my gut says Condi knows better to than to allow Bush to be convinced by the neocons again.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #25 on:** April 02, 2007, 02:31:20 PM »

Quote from: Cheebs on April 02, 2007, 02:29:26 PM

My final view on the Iran situation is Bush has little over a year left in terms of any sway whatsoever he has on the world community as president, he won't start another war in which he will have almost no time to manage. Plus even though Cheney may want it my gut says Condi knows better to than to allow Bush to be convinced by the neocons again.

Amen. It just doesn't make sense, given the timeline. To make matters worse, there's no way the Republicans would sit back and let Bush lose them their jobs in 08

Tauntaun · « **Reply #26 on:** April 02, 2007, 04:45:28 PM »

I don't think we should. If we do bomb them and war breaks out (I only see this happening if the British need to attack to get their people back) you can bet your ass there'll be a draft and WWIII will have begun.

Also, about that Carter statement, he was a moron, the British had the same thing happen to their embassy and they sent commandos in and rescued their people. Look who's still got an embassy over there now and who doesn't. Carter should have sent black ops to rescue our people and we'd be in a better situation, not much but better.

Mupepe · « **Reply #27 on:** April 02, 2007, 04:47:39 PM »

Only if it's a gigantic nuclear bomb. If Iran doesn't exist afterwards, then there's no problem!

yeah...

Tauntaun · « **Reply #28 on:** April 02, 2007, 04:48:50 PM »

Quote from: Mupepe on April 02, 2007, 04:47:39 PM

Only if it's a gigantic nuclear bomb. If Iran doesn't exist afterwards, then there's no problem!

yeah...

even your replies are hawt

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #29 on:** April 02, 2007, 05:44:17 PM »

Israel and the UK have fought their own wars and skirmishes without the assistance of our marines before, Phoenix Dark. I don't know who taught you history, but they suck.

Mupepe · « **Reply #30 on:** April 02, 2007, 05:46:38 PM »

Willco, everyone knows that the US is the only country with an operational military force.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #31 on:** April 02, 2007, 05:51:28 PM »

Obviously! If they are an ally and provoked, we must send in marines!

... That's distinguished mentally-challenged. The likelihood is that the UK and Israel, emphasis on the latter, will probably strike at Iran in retaliation of the hostages and any nuclear development sites. The US will assist with reconnaissance, intelligence and naval/air force, but you won't hear about a single public op inside Iranian borders from the Pentagon. It's just not going to happen.

Israel is perfectly equipped to deal with Iran on their own and UK public sentiment will determine what Blair does, but neither need the United States for a military campaign.

And neither country will invade Iran, which is a huge, huge difference from the US in Iraq.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #32 on:** April 02, 2007, 05:57:25 PM »

What do you mean that's distinguished mentally-challenged? If Britian is attacked, you better bet your ass we'd help. Has to do with that ally thing

And please stop putting words in my mouth. I never even mentioned marines. As you pointed out in your second paragraph, there are many ways to help without sending actual troops. I doubt a war with Iran would be fought on the ground no matter who's involved

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #33 on:** April 02, 2007, 06:03:35 PM »

Then don't tell me that I'm "lost" if I don't think the US will be pulled in after I said all we'd do is lend naval support and intelligence. That infers that you mean more than that, which would be ground troops. The only person that put words in your mouth is yourself, you backpedaling, wannabe moderate conservative.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #34 on:** April 02, 2007, 06:17:42 PM »

Quote from: Willco on April 02, 2007, 06:03:35 PM

Then don't tell me that I'm "lost" if I don't think the US will be pulled in after I said all we'd do is lend naval support and intelligence. That infers that you mean more than that, which would be ground troops. The only person that put words in your mouth is yourself, you backpedaling, wannabe moderate conservative.

I'm not backpedaling at all. You came in this thread to cause trouble, and I brushed it off. Hell we agree for the most part on this issue.

My post about someone being "lost" wasn't even aimed at you, so put yer guards down

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #35 on:** April 02, 2007, 06:23:15 PM »

Who was it directed at? Couldn't have been Cheebs, that'd make no sense. Your pants are around your ankles, son.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #36 on:** April 02, 2007, 06:29:56 PM »

I have been going back and forth with Cheebs through most of this thread dude

Whatever, it's irrelevent. I've never seen someone so obsessed with arguing over the smallest aspects of an issue, just to creation disagreement when in reality we're all on the same page.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #37 on:** April 02, 2007, 06:30:51 PM »

Yes, but that comment wasn't directed towards Cheebs. It doesn't make sense. It was obviously directed towards me. And it's not irrelevant, because if so, then you're inferring ground troops - which is distinguished mentally-challenged.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #38 on:** April 02, 2007, 06:35:03 PM »

Quote from: Willco on April 02, 2007, 06:30:51 PM

Yes, but that comment wasn't directed towards Cheebs. It doesn't make sense. It was obviously directed towards me. And it's not irrelevant, because if so, then you're inferring ground troops - which is distinguished mentally-challenged.

How would that possibly mean I'm inferring ground troops? In my first post of this thread I said a ground war wouldn't be possible; perhaps you should read people's posts before attacking them next time.

Mupepe · « **Reply #39 on:** April 02, 2007, 06:38:01 PM »

poor people change their own oil

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #40 on:** April 02, 2007, 06:40:01 PM »

Mupepe...wrong thread?

Mupepe · « **Reply #41 on:** April 02, 2007, 06:42:47 PM »

yeah

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #42 on:** April 02, 2007, 06:43:36 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on April 02, 2007, 06:35:03 PM

How would that possibly mean I'm inferring ground troops? In my first post of this thread I said a ground war wouldn't be possible; perhaps you should read people's posts before attacking them next time.

Actually, your first post details why a ground would be disastrous, but you never discount it and seem to brace for it. That's when I step in and say any discussion of the matter is just distinguished mentally-challenged; it will never, ever happen. The UK and Israel are perfectly capable of launching military campaigns by themselves, and all they'll get from us is intelligence and naval support. To which you reply that I'm lost if I think that's the case. Me. Not Cheebs, because Cheebs didn't say anything to even merit such a reply.

If you think I'm lost by saying the UK and Israel will attack Iran with their own discretion and military, and only will receive intelligence and limited naval support from America - then you have to mean that we'd be dragged into a ground conflict.

If you're going to be argumentative, just because that's your shtick, I'd at least appreciate if you attempted to do it somewhat proficiently.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #43 on:** April 02, 2007, 06:49:55 PM »

Quote from: PhoenixDark

We are too stretched out in Iraq to possibly wage a ground war with Iran.

What's so hard to understand about that statement? You're grasping at straws now, and it makes little sense. How I'm being argumentative when you're attempting to spin my very words is beyond me.

How do I "brace" for it when I've said over and over that a confrontation is highly unlikely, and a low possibility? In fact the only way for it to come to be, according to my previous posts, is if Iran provokes it. At that point Cheebs challenged my statement, to which I explained that there are different levels of provocation, some of which are more serious (Iran attacking allies) than others (hostages).

This is getting into am nintenho territory.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #44 on:** April 02, 2007, 06:53:50 PM »

Only because you refuse to accept the fact that you called me out and you were WRONG.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #45 on:** April 02, 2007, 06:59:45 PM »

How was I wrong when I agree with you on that?

Why would I declare you lost after you just described a scenerio I agree with? Especially considering I made it clear in my first post that a ground war wasn't possible. If a ground war isn't possble...what does that mean? It opens the door to everything you suggested, making that more likely.

Hell I even said I agreed with you after the post in question.

Mandark · « **Reply #46 on:** April 03, 2007, 10:44:12 AM »

Iran ain't a threat. Unlike Iraq, which was a weirdly partitioned state whose leader had pipe dreams of pan-Arab regional dominance, Iran's pretty much set where it is, thanks to Persian cultural/ethnic identity.

Also, Iran controls groups that could attack the US from inside the country? Yeah, okay.

News:

Author Topic: PD do you think we should go to war with Iran? (Read 1723 times)