US to attack Iran? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 08-23-2007, 09:54 AM

There has been some troubling developments with Iran over the last few months. Below are a few examples:

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../08/23/1333237

Quote:

John Bolton Says He Hopes U.S. Will Invade Iran
Former CIA operative Robert Baer is predicting the U.S. will attack Iran within the next six months. Baer wrote an article in this week's Time Magazine in which he s an unnamed Bush administration official saying "There will be an attack on Iran." On Wednesday former UN ambassador John Bolton told Fox News that he hopes the attack will happen.

* John Bolton: "Absolutely. I hope Iran understands that we are very serious, that we are determined they are not going to get a nuclear weapon capability, and unless they change the strategic decision they’ve been pursuing for close to 20 years, that that’s something they better factor into their calculations."

John Bolton is preparing to release a new book titled "Surrender is not an Option."

Also look at the posturing being done by Fox News:
http://www.youtube.com/v/1-eyuFBrWHs
(if someone knows how to imbed this please let me know).

Are we gearing up for another war? What would this do to the upcoming elections? What would this do to our troops? Is there anyway to have a 3rd war without a draft? Or is Fox's posturing just about creating an environment of fear for its listeners in order to get and maintain GOP support?

Bill O'Rights · 08-23-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Is there anyway to have a 3rd war without a draft?

I don't think that we're going to be able to sustain the second war for very much longer without a draft, let alone a third one. I wonder how many 18-26 year olds will suddenly come to terms with their "homosexuality" and come out of the closet?

mixedmedia · 08-23-2007, 10:14 AM

I have a hard time taking this seriously. But if you would have asked me 10 years ago if I thought any of this current absurdity would have been going on I wouldn't have believed it, either.

Let's just say that I hope with every fibre of my being that it is bullshit distraction.

Willravel · 08-23-2007, 10:21 AM

We're going to bomb them into oblivion first. More civilian casualties than in Iraq, and basically level before we set foot in there. We're going to hit chemical plants and even their nuclear site so that the whole place gets poisoned. It makes me sick, but it's very likely at this point. We're in the middle of lying about them developing nuclear weapons, having ties to terrorism, backing the insurgents, etc. It's probably going to happen, and it's going to happen before Hillary gets elected (another prediction that pisses me off).

tecoyah · 08-23-2007, 12:44 PM

I just signed the petition....its a tiny little gesture, but at least its a gesture.

http://foxattacks.com/iran

I refuse to watch the Media create war.

kurty[B] · 08-23-2007, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

We're in the middle of lying about them developing nuclear weapons, having ties to terrorism, backing the insurgents, etc.

That's the scariest thing. The news claims to show "the facts" while lying bold faced to the world. One network pushes it, and the others follow suit because they have to make sure they're reporting the "top stories".

I would hope the current administration is smart enough to realize our military is not limitless. I'm afraid that they probably look at the map and say "well, if we involve Iran then it's just a war against the Middle East and not a war in Iraq and war in Afghanistan.

Fire · 08-23-2007, 05:41 PM

I am all for killing extremists that hate us, but this seems like a bad way to attempt it.......... and a great way to make more extremists....... and bog down the military in another nation building fiasco (when will the powers what is figure out that the military is for nation destroying, and by nature not so good at nation building)

fooie · 08-24-2007, 05:24 AM

Quote:

The man President Bush selected to be the nation’s “War Czar” says it is time to consider a return to a military draft.

http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content...7wacrncol.html

Perhaps this is as much preparatory for an invasion of Iran as it is to shore up efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

fastom · 08-25-2007, 12:33 AM

There was a three hour lineup at the Canadian border today... better get packing!

archetypal fool · 08-25-2007, 04:22 AM

Disgusting - The Administration pushes for a war against Iran and, out of the blue, Fox follows suit with blatant propaganda. If there was ever any proof that the US is going to burn unless something is done to take power away from morally corrupt Neo-Cons or the malleable news coverage is reformed, this is it.

Nothing good can come from attacking Iran - the same was said about Iraq, and look where we are on that front. Not to mention, Iran is not like Iraq - it has allies in Russia and China, and is close to producing its own nuclear weapons. It would be a profoundly stupid move to attack Iran - but I wouldn't put it past the current administration.

Something bad is going to happen me thinks.

roachboy · 08-25-2007, 06:57 AM

pretext building has been ongoing--for example last week a report surfaced somewhere (in a newspaper, but i cant remember which) that the bush people wanted to declare elements within the iranian military a "terrorist organization"...

this is a horrible idea. i keep hoping that the political support the bush people are able to pretend they maintain is collapsing so fast and so thoroughly that an action against iran is ruled out. but then i think: uh...there is little reason to expect that the bush people and reason ever enter the same room.

so i dunno: the possibility is certainly there and has been for some time.
whether the "decider" undertakes an action that'll make the war in iraq look like a session in a sauna or not is still hard to say.

but i agree with the last night of af's post above absolutely.

Plan9 · 08-25-2007, 11:55 AM

I hope we don't stick our dick in anybody else's pie for a long, long time.

(keeps his USAR duffel bag packed anyway)

fresnelly · 08-25-2007, 01:19 PM

My feeling is that the US will only attack Iran if there is some sort of spectacular terrorist action that can be successfully linked to Iranian nationals. That's my nightmare scenario.

Plan9 · 08-25-2007, 03:25 PM

Who needs a nightmare scenario when we have idiots in office?

Infinite_Loser · 08-25-2007, 09:49 PM

I like the idea of the draft, so long as the people in the Bush administration are the first draftees.

Though, part of me wonders how they would ever get away with attacking Iran, seeing as how the majority of the American public hates the current war in Iraq.

DaveOrion · 08-26-2007, 06:10 AM

Great Idea I_L, perhaps Bush's daughters could be the first in line for the draft. Followed by all the children, of all the neocon's that seem hell bent on securing vital natural resources in the middle east. You gotta love that smokescreen though, it worked before, why not again???

Baraka_Guru · 08-26-2007, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

We're going to bomb them into oblivion first. More civilian casualties than in Iraq, and basically level before we set foot in there.

Yeah, I don't think they'll even attempt hearts and minds here; they'll go straight to shock and awe....it takes fewer troops. But they'd better make it quick, Russia's aviation industry is booming.

Plan9 · 08-26-2007, 10:11 AM

(votes for a major world power to invade the US)

(for a change)

ASU2003 · 08-27-2007, 05:14 PM

You don't need to invade the entire USA, just DC and Crawford.

DaveOrion · 08-27-2007, 05:33 PM

I vote no, thats a bit extreme.

fastom · 08-28-2007, 10:20 AM

Perhaps the Crawford branch of Al Queda needs to be tossed from office before he starts WW3.

roachboy · 08-29-2007, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Bush threatens to confront Iran over alleged support for Iraqi insurgents

· US president accuses Tehran of arming militants
· Speech aimed at shoring up support for 'surge'

Ed Pilkington in New York
Wednesday August 29, 2007
The Guardian

George Bush yesterday ramped up the war of words between the US and Iran, accusing Tehran of threatening to place the Middle East under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust and revealing that he had authorised US military commanders in Iraq to "confront Tehran's murderous activities".

In a speech designed to shore up US public opinion behind his unpopular strategy in Iraq, the president reserved his strongest words for the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which he accused of openly supporting violent forces within Iraq. Iran, he said, was responsible for training extremist Shia factions in Iraq, supplying them with weapons, including sophisticated roadside bombs. Iran has denied all these accusations.

Mr Bush referred specifically to 240mm rockets which he said were made in Iran this year and smuggled into Iraq.

"Iran has long been a source of trouble in the region," he said." Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."

The blunt terms in which Mr Bush portrayed the Iranian threat, and his threat of military confrontation with Tehran involving US troops based in Iraq, elevated the tense standoff between Washington and Tehran to a new level.

The speech also contained the implicit desire on Mr Bush's part for regime change, calling for "an Iran whose government is accountable to its people, instead of to leaders who promote terror and pursue the technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons".

Equally menacing words emanated from Tehran yesterday, where Mr Ahmadinejad said US influence in the region was collapsing so fast that a power vacuum would soon be created. "Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap," he said.

Though the Iranian president said he backed the leadership of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, and welcomed the involvement of Saudi Arabia, his offer to occupy the space the Americans might leave behind is unlikely to cool emotions in Washington.

He went on to deride the possibility of the US pursuing military action in Iran, saying it was in no position to do so and claimed that Iran had already acquired enriched nuclear fuels, though they would only be used for peaceful purposes.

In a further cause of tension, Mr Bush accused the Quds force within Iran's revolutionary guards of leading the supply chain to Iraqi extremist groups. As the Guardian revealed earlier this month, the Bush administration is preparing to declare the 125,000-strong Revolutionary Guard Corps a "global terrorist organisation" - a move that would be seen as provocative within Tehran.

According to reports from Baghdad last night, a group of Iranians were detained last night in a raid by US troops on a hotel in the city. Of 10 people arrested, seven were said to be Iranian, including an employee of the Iranian embassy and six members of Iran's electricity ministry in Iraq to discuss contracts for electric power stations. It was not immediately clear why the men had been arrested, or where they had been taken. The US military would only say the action was part of an on-going operation.

Mr Bush's bullish talk of his determination to "take the fight to the enemy" in the carefully choreographed setting of a veterans' convention in Reno, Nevada, was the second of a two-part appeal by him to shore up public support for his flagging strategy on Iraq. In the first speech, made last week, he invoked Vietnam to argue that quitting Iraq now could put the lives of millions of innocent civilians at risk.

Mr Bush yesterday vowed to persevere with his controversial military policy in Iraq, insisting that political and security progress was being made, despite a rising tide of dissent even from high up within his Republican party.

"Our strategy is this: every day we work to protect the American people. We will fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them in the United States of America," he said.

The twin speeches were intended as preparation for a crucial series of debates on Iraq that will dominate Washington for the next few weeks.

In a fortnight the senior general in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and American ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, will give two days of testimony in which they are likely to argue that the troop "surge" is having some beneficial impact on security levels, though political progress lags behind.

Under the current policy, US troop numbers in Iraq have risen by 30,000 to about 165,000.

As the climax of these intense hearings, Mr Bush himself will present his latest assessment.

Yesterday's speech was the latest clear indication that he will resist any attempt to change course in the prosecution of the war.

Mr Bush's latest attempt to reassure the American people that the war is moving in the right direction came on another tumultuous day in Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims attending a Shia festival in Kerbala, 68 miles south-west of Baghdad, were ordered to leave the city after intense fighting broke out, reportedly between warring Shia factions. At least 52 people have been killed since Monday, mostly police officers engaging in the battle.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2158059,00.html

ok so while the thread veered off into some odd exchange of quips, the bush people continue trying to set up iran as a kind of fifth column in iraq. a partial explanation for american failure--for the bush administration's failure, for the failure of planning on the rumsfeld-model pentagon. the rhetoric continues to ramp up. the "case" being made here is curiously reminiscent of the kind of shabby "case" from 2003...but in this situation there are already considerable american naval resources in the persian gulf and no particular brakes--apart from logistics and politics in the more informal sense.

when i was thinking about the gonzalez resignation and its implications, i kept thinking "ok, but its not as though george w bush has vanished--this idiot is still behind the wheel of something--he needs a crisis, an event, a Problem to bypass the logic of the situation that presents itself in regular time--a situation in which all roads lead to defeat not only for george the figurehead, but also for the entire view of xecutive power generally attributed to cheney, his post-vietnam revisionism, his conception of redress...." so the political situation facing the administration is clear. their difficult in accepting reality that they do not like is clear, at least at the level of the cheap machiavellian politics they have indulged since 2001. impasse impasse impasse.

when a badly written tragedy grinds itself into an insoluble plot dilemma at odds with the desired outcome, the author generally called for my favorite cheap device, the deus ex machina--the god wheeled in on a crane, who waves his god-hands around and "fixes" all the debris left by cheap, bad plot development and whose actions enable the story to "end properly"

no-one wants a shitty ending.

on the other hand, one of the characteristics of the deus-ex-machina is that it kinda comes out of nowhere. but that's in tragedy. a deus ex machina in "real life" is more complex a contraption, requiring some building.

whence the unease generated by this latest escalation of penis-waving in the direction of iran.

now the distinction between seeing in this a cheap narrative device introduced to resuce hapless characters from their own situation--blame the Writer of course, who is the Decider in such situations---and cause for genuine alarm centers on what this statement means really:

Quote:

...revealing that he had authorised US military commanders in Iraq to "confront Tehran's murderous activities".

what is cowboy george saying here?
what authorizations? to do what exactly?

style mea culpa: the word "cheap" appears too many times in this post.
but all this *is* cheap, in the sense of bad theater.

but it would not be cheap materially, politically, militarily were the scenario behind all this were to unfold, were the bush squad to order an action against iran.

at the very least, the fact that such an action would transparently be about the bush squad propping itself up politically in the states by generating a "new threat" which would legitimate the "decider" in a situation that is no-win for him otherwise---that interpretation of any such action, no matter how it is justified by the bush squad--is so obvious and so unavoidable that it undercuts any coherent machiavellian tactic....

fastom · 08-29-2007, 07:23 AM

Too bad the UN can't declare Dubya and henchmen a threat to world peace and have them removed from office.

Willravel · 08-29-2007, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

Too bad the UN can't declare Dubya and henchmen a threat to world peace and have them removed from office.

I'd rather if the American people did it ourselves. It's our responsibility. The blood is on our hands for not stopping the invasion and subsequent genocide.

guyy · 08-29-2007, 12:19 PM

I'm tempted to post something about the military, political, social reasons why a military strike against Iran would be a Very Bad Idea. However, it's clear from the Iraq Debacle that BushCo. do not act rationally. Where the evidence does not suit them, they simply ignore it or have someone make up something more convenient. (I can imagine we'll hear something about how Mohamed Atta met in Prague with Iranian agents or some such nonsense.) In any case, if rational arguments are useless what sort of response is possible? I sense a Nixonian gambit, that is, an attempt to institute a state of passivity by suggesting that you're irrational.

Here's hoping that they've generated enough ill will and distrust from their phony posturing during '02 & '03 that they won't have enough support internally to pull it off.

roachboy · 08-29-2007, 02:55 PM

the business i read about somewhere last week of the bush people wanting to get the revolutionary guard declared a "terrorist organization" is something that made me start actively wondering what the hell they are doing....the pattern is not yet entirely obvious, but if the previous farces are any guide, we should be able to piece it together..soon if there is a bit of Theater in the works in a serious way.

Plan9 · 08-29-2007, 03:42 PM

I like how when I talk to other soldiers about the idea of invading Iran... they don't really care. They don't think about it; politically philosophy is not a worry.

"How many pairs of socks am I packing, Sarge?"

ottopilot · 08-29-2007, 05:57 PM

Infinite_Loser · 08-29-2007, 07:18 PM

I'm too lazy to go look up the answer to thsoe questions. Gimme' the answers, and then I'll post a formal response.

ottopilot · 08-29-2007, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I'm too lazy to go look up the answer to thsoe questions. Gimme' the answers, and then I'll post a formal response.

Yup. That's what I'm talking about.

Infinite_Loser · 08-29-2007, 07:37 PM

Well, to be honest, I don't see the point in asking a series of questions and then telling us to go look up the answers for ourselves. Seems kinda'... Pointless to me. It isn't that I don't care, but that I don't have the time to go hunting down information solely for your amusement.

(Also, I might be going crazy, but did your long-winded response disappear?)

dc_dux · 08-29-2007, 07:37 PM

In response to ottopilot's post (which has mysteriously disappeared) suggesting we invaded Iraq to get to Iran (?)...if that was the US plan, it was just another example of the moronic logic of the neo-conservatives.

Saddam, as brutal to his own people as he was, was also a buffer against the spread of Iran's influence in the region. The new shiia-dominated governemnt in Iraq is controlled by the Dawa and SCIRI parties, both of which have long-standing ties to Iran.

The only thing we accomplished in Iraq by removing Saddam was to strengthen Iran and the shiia extremist clerics in Iraql, like Moqtada al-Sadr

37OHSSV · 08-29-2007, 10:31 PM

Perhaps one of the many haters in this thread has a feasible course of action in regard to Iran?

Note: Iran does not respond to "negotiation." They just want to kill us.

dc_dux · 08-30-2007, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 37OHSSV

Perhaps one of the many haters in this thread has a feasible course of action in regard to Iran?

Note: Iran does not respond to "negotiation." They just want to kill us.

Characterizing folks here with whom you disagree as "haters" hardly adds to the discussion.

You might want to consider the facts that:

* the Iranian people do not want to kill us; most are pro-western....until we indiscrimately start bombing their country and they, and their families, become the latest civilan casualties of US aggression as a result of their proximity to military sites.

* there have been virtually no high level direct discussions between the US and Iran in the six Bush years.

Fortunately there are some within the defense establishment who are not as belligerent as Cheney and the other neo-con chickenhawks.

Admiral Fallon, commander, US Central Command who said ealier this year:

Quote:

...Fallon, who was scheduled to become the CENTCOM chief Mar. 16, responded to the proposed plan by sending a strongly-worded message to the Defence Department in mid-February opposing any further U.S. naval buildup in the Persian Gulf as unwarranted.

"He asked why another aircraft carrier was needed in the Gulf and insisted there was no military requirement for it," says the source, who obtained the gist of Fallon's message from a Pentagon official who had read it.

Fallon's refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch".

Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=37738

Let us hope he succeeds in "putting the crazies back in the box"

Here is how one report from the UK describes the potential outcome of military action against Iran:

Quote:

The report warns that US or Israeli attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities could lead to civilian deaths, radioactive contamination, heightened conflict in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan, al-Qaeda attacks stemming from intensified anti-western feeling, higher oil prices and an acceleration of Tehran's nuclear programme.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e53ffd5c-b4b...0779e2340.html

ottopilot · 08-30-2007, 06:40 AM

The_Jazz · 08-30-2007, 06:46 AM

The post disappeared because ottopilot went back to it to add a link to that post. It got caught in the automated spam filter but should be back in place now (and has been for a while). There's no mystery, just fallout from us keeping you free from viagra offers.

ottopilot · 08-30-2007, 06:55 AM

roachboy · 08-30-2007, 07:50 AM

otto:

your post no. 28 is circular.

it is pretty clear that the trajectory into it (your post) began with "radical islam" and a loose definition of it---and *then* passed through a phase of assembling (otherwise arbitrary) information to support it.
not the other way around.

this is the premise:

Quote:

Radical Islam is on our doorstep, in your hometown, they are patient, and there’s a good chance we’ll be hearing from them soon in our schools, shopping centers, subways, and hospitals

you put it about 3/4 of the way into the post.
so far as i am concerned, the conversation ended there.
that premise is simply an elaborated paranoia. there might be some therapeutic function to be had by allowing paranoia to unspool across a political category (an ideological meme is more accurate a characterisation)
but frankly you seem only to outline the effects of the phrase "radical islam"

when you decide that "radical islam" is one thing, you make it one thing. when you decide that "radical islam" is everywhere and nowhere, you find it everywhere and nowhere.
this is all the post does--it is a demonstration of this procedure.

so such data as you reference or use is unnecessary. your post is about the effects of the category, and that's about it.

in other words, your post argues from projection.

and you choose to adopt the posture of some Prophet, at least rhetorically.

so you basically tell us--those who who read your post---that you advance non-falsifiable claims.
you tell us that your there is no point in debate because there is no debate to be had so far as you are concerned.
and you tell us that we are benighted if we dont agree with you.

so i am having trouble finding motivation to engage.
maybe reconsider your approach.

ottopilot · 08-30-2007, 10:56 AM

guyy · 08-31-2007, 08:05 AM

I agree with blatteboy about paranoia and circular arguments. I'd add that if you want to identify "Radicalized Islam" as something monolithic and "coming from the Iranian theocracy and their religious allies", you're going to miss radicalised Islam in places like Gaza or the W. Bank, or Algeria, or the Muslim Brotherhood, which has its roots in Egypt. You'd also be missing the reasons for radicalisation of youth in the West. In sum, your premise of a Vast Iranian Islamofascist Conspiracy doesn't account for much.

If one wishes to make the premise that the invasion of Iraq was really directed at Iran, one has to first cleanse ones mind of the causal chain set in motion by the invasion, not to mention SW Asian regional politics and history. It's not a very productive way to go about things.

08-23-2007, 10:14 AM	#3 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I have a hard time taking this seriously. But if you would have asked me 10 years ago if I thought any of this current absurdity would have been going on I wouldn't have believed it, either. Let's just say that I hope with every fibre of my being that it is bullshit distraction. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

08-23-2007, 05:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
Fire Warrior Smith Location: missouri	I am all for killing extremists that hate us, but this seems like a bad way to attempt it.......... and a great way to make more extremists....... and bog down the military in another nation building fiasco (when will the powers what is figure out that the military is for nation destroying, and by nature not so good at nation building) __________________ Thought the harder, Heart the bolder, Mood the more as our might lessens

08-25-2007, 04:22 AM	#10 (permalink)
archetypal fool Crazy Location: Florida	Disgusting - The Administration pushes for a war against Iran and, out of the blue, Fox follows suit with blatant propaganda. If there was ever any proof that the US is going to burn unless something is done to take power away from morally corrupt Neo-Cons or the malleable news coverage is reformed, this is it. Nothing good can come from attacking Iran - the same was said about Iraq, and look where we are on that front. Not to mention, Iran is not like Iraq - it has allies in Russia and China, and is close to producing its own nuclear weapons. It would be a profoundly stupid move to attack Iran - but I wouldn't put it past the current administration. Something bad is going to happen me thinks. __________________ I have my own particular sorrows, loves, delights; and you have yours. But sorrow, gladness, yearning, hope, love, belong to all of us, in all times and in all places. Music is the only means whereby we feel these emotions in their universality. ~H.A. Overstreet

08-25-2007, 06:57 AM	#11 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	pretext building has been ongoing--for example last week a report surfaced somewhere (in a newspaper, but i cant remember which) that the bush people wanted to declare elements within the iranian military a "terrorist organization"... this is a horrible idea. i keep hoping that the political support the bush people are able to pretend they maintain is collapsing so fast and so thoroughly that an action against iran is ruled out. but then i think: uh...there is little reason to expect that the bush people and reason ever enter the same room. so i dunno: the possibility is certainly there and has been for some time. whether the "decider" undertakes an action that'll make the war in iraq look like a session in a sauna or not is still hard to say. but i agree with the last night of af's post above absolutely. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-25-2007, 11:55 AM	#12 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	I hope we don't stick our dick in anybody else's pie for a long, long time. (keeps his USAR duffel bag packed anyway) __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

08-23-2007, 10:21 AM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	We're going to bomb them into oblivion first. More civilian casualties than in Iraq, and basically level before we set foot in there. We're going to hit chemical plants and even their nuclear site so that the whole place gets poisoned. It makes me sick, but it's very likely at this point. We're in the middle of lying about them developing nuclear weapons, having ties to terrorism, backing the insurgents, etc. It's probably going to happen, and it's going to happen before Hillary gets elected (another prediction that pisses me off).

08-23-2007, 12:44 PM	#5 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I just signed the petition....its a tiny little gesture, but at least its a gesture. http://foxattacks.com/iran I refuse to watch the Media create war.

08-25-2007, 12:33 AM	#9 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	There was a three hour lineup at the Canadian border today... better get packing!

08-25-2007, 01:19 PM	#13 (permalink)
fresnelly Functionally Appropriate Location: Toronto	My feeling is that the US will only attack Iran if there is some sort of spectacular terrorist action that can be successfully linked to Iranian nationals. That's my nightmare scenario. __________________ Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

08-25-2007, 03:25 PM	#14 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Who needs a nightmare scenario when we have idiots in office? __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

08-25-2007, 09:49 PM	#15 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	I like the idea of the draft, so long as the people in the Bush administration are the first draftees. Though, part of me wonders how they would ever get away with attacking Iran, seeing as how the majority of the American public hates the current war in Iraq. __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

08-26-2007, 06:10 AM	#16 (permalink)
DaveOrion Playing With Fire Location: Disaster Area	Great Idea I_L, perhaps Bush's daughters could be the first in line for the draft. Followed by all the children, of all the neocon's that seem hell bent on securing vital natural resources in the middle east. You gotta love that smokescreen though, it worked before, why not again??? __________________ *Syriana*...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

08-26-2007, 10:11 AM	#18 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	(votes for a major world power to invade the US) (for a change) __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

08-27-2007, 05:14 PM	#19 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	You don't need to invade the entire USA, just DC and Crawford.

08-27-2007, 05:33 PM	#20 (permalink)
DaveOrion Playing With Fire Location: Disaster Area	I vote no, thats a bit extreme. __________________ *Syriana*...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

08-28-2007, 10:20 AM	#21 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	Perhaps the Crawford branch of Al Queda needs to be tossed from office before he starts WW3.

08-29-2007, 07:23 AM	#23 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	Too bad the UN can't declare Dubya and henchmen a threat to world peace and have them removed from office.

08-29-2007, 12:19 PM	#25 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	I'm tempted to post something about the military, political, social reasons why a military strike against Iran would be a Very Bad Idea. However, it's clear from the Iraq Debacle that BushCo. do not act rationally. Where the evidence does not suit them, they simply ignore it or have someone make up something more convenient. (I can imagine we'll hear something about how Mohamed Atta met in Prague with Iranian agents or some such nonsense.) In any case, if rational arguments are useless what sort of response is possible? I sense a Nixonian gambit, that is, an attempt to institute a state of passivity by suggesting that you're irrational. Here's hoping that they've generated enough ill will and distrust from their phony posturing during '02 & '03 that they won't have enough support internally to pull it off.

08-29-2007, 02:55 PM	#26 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the business i read about somewhere last week of the bush people wanting to get the revolutionary guard declared a "terrorist organization" is something that made me start actively wondering what the hell they are doing....the pattern is not yet entirely obvious, but if the previous farces are any guide, we should be able to piece it together..soon if there is a bit of Theater in the works in a serious way. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-29-2007, 03:42 PM	#27 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	I like how when I talk to other soldiers about the idea of invading Iran... they don't really care. They don't think about it; politically philosophy is not a worry. "How many pairs of socks am I packing, Sarge?" __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

08-29-2007, 05:57 PM	#28 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:24 AM..

08-29-2007, 07:18 PM	#29 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	I'm too lazy to go look up the answer to thsoe questions. Gimme' the answers, and then I'll post a formal response. __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

08-29-2007, 07:37 PM	#31 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	Well, to be honest, I don't see the point in asking a series of questions and then telling us to go look up the answers for ourselves. Seems kinda'... Pointless to me. It isn't that I don't care, but that I don't have the time to go hunting down information solely for your amusement. (Also, I might be going crazy, but did your long-winded response disappear?) __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

08-29-2007, 07:37 PM	#32 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	In response to ottopilot's post (which has mysteriously disappeared) suggesting we invaded Iraq to get to Iran (?)...if that was the US plan, it was just another example of the moronic logic of the neo-conservatives. Saddam, as brutal to his own people as he was, was also a buffer against the spread of Iran's influence in the region. The new shiia-dominated governemnt in Iraq is controlled by the Dawa and SCIRI parties, both of which have long-standing ties to Iran. The only thing we accomplished in Iraq by removing Saddam was to strengthen Iran and the shiia extremist clerics in Iraql, like Moqtada al-Sadr __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 08-29-2007 at 07:55 PM.. Reason: added links

08-29-2007, 10:31 PM	#33 (permalink)
37OHSSV Upright Location: Lesbian trapped in a man's body	Perhaps one of the many haters in this thread has a feasible course of action in regard to Iran? Note: Iran does not respond to "negotiation." They just want to kill us.

08-30-2007, 06:40 AM	#35 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:23 AM..

08-30-2007, 06:46 AM	#36 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	The post disappeared because ottopilot went back to it to add a link to that post. It got caught in the automated spam filter but should be back in place now (and has been for a while). There's no mystery, just fallout from us keeping you free from viagra offers. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

08-30-2007, 06:55 AM	#37 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:22 AM..

08-30-2007, 10:56 AM	#39 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:21 AM..

08-31-2007, 08:05 AM	#40 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	I agree with blatteboy about paranoia and circular arguments. I'd add that if you want to identify "Radicalized Islam" as something monolithic and "coming from the Iranian theocracy and their religious allies", you're going to miss radicalised Islam in places like Gaza or the W. Bank, or Algeria, or the Muslim Brotherhood, which has its roots in Egypt. You'd also be missing the reasons for radicalisation of youth in the West. In sum, your premise of a Vast Iranian Islamofascist Conspiracy doesn't account for much. If one wishes to make the premise that the invasion of Iraq was really directed at Iran, one has to first cleanse ones mind of the causal chain set in motion by the invasion, not to mention SW Asian regional politics and history. It's not a very productive way to go about things.