US operating inside Iran?
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4180087.stm
Ok before anyone takes this as proof realize that this is mearly speculation at the moment. This journalist does have a lot of credibility and it is the only reason I posted it. I have a feeling we will have a better idea of the facts in the next few weeks. But before this happens I want to start a discussion on a couple of things. 1) Is this true? and 2) Assuming it is true what should be done about it?

Is it true? Well, how can we know? I hope not. And I doubt it.

What should be done about it? I don't think anything could be done about it. If the Pentagon has commandos (I presume they mean Special Forces) operating in Iran it's at the behest of the White House.

Mr Mephisto

Not much can be said about this. You have to be crazy to not know that a showdown is coming with Iran. For some reason I get the impression, and it could be that there congress was chanting death to America, they aren't going to give up their Illegal nuclear program. Before we argue about that, I must further throw in the fact that it is illegal by the same international law that North Korea violates, non-proliferation, and that it is NOT cool if Iran gets nukes.

I would rather have our boys on the ground preparing now, getting the right information, so that if and when we go in there our boys will be that much better off that will result in less loss of life all around.

I suppose we'll just have to wait for it to die off or for conformation. I wouldn't be surprised either way, to be honest. If we have agents in Iran, it's probably just to keep an eye on Seyyed Ali Khamenei (we get oil from him).

Absolutely right.

But there are many ways to go about preventing them getting nukes. Unfortunately the only proven method is military action.

But honestly, does anyone really believe the US will invade? It hardly has enough troops to police Iraq properly. This won't happen. At least not any time soon.

Surgical strikes (a la Israel maybe), but invasion? I can't see it.

It's a difficult one to call.


Mr Mephisto

Invasion vs. Occupation, who knows?

I would hope that this time around the rest of the world assesses the threat and steps up to the plate. We don't need a repeat of North Korea 94' or WMD Iraq sanctions, let's be proactive and actually accomplish something.

The War currently in Iraq does not bode well not only for international problems but for military logistics as well. If there is a fullblown invasion then occupation, then there will most likely be a draft.

Mojo, rest assured the rest of the world will absolutely, categorically NOT support a unilateral attack on Iran. If the US is hoping for that, then it's gonna have a long wait.

Most of the countries that opposed the invasion of Iraq now believe their position has been vindicated.

No WMDs
No direct link to 9/11
No terrorist training camps
Massive resistance (some say over 200,000 insurgents)
Ongoing "allied" casualties
Massive Iraqi civilian casualites
etc

I don't want to see Iran get a nuke either, but no one is going to support an invasion. Especially now after Iraq.

The only think I can see happening is the US feeding Israel intelligence and the Israelis sending in the jets to bomb the research sites.

I wouldn't like to see that either, but I've got no answer to this problem.

Unless you just believe them when they say they are not developing the bombs or let them have them and don't fuck with them any more (which is probably exactly what they want).


Mr Mephisto

Problem with leaving it to Israel as like Operation Opera with Iraq, is that these nuclear sites are active, Iraq's was not.

I don't have a quick fix, but I would be for invasion rather then a bunch of crazy fundies who state sponsor terrorism having a nuclear weapon.

Which is a big reason why I hated the war in Iraq in the first place - yeah Saddam was an ass but I think he was a big reason why Iran was literally kept in check for a long time.

Saddam could keep bragging about his WMDs to deter Iran from doing anything - if anything, despite being a butcher, his strongarm tactics kept fundies out of Iraq and kept a check on Iran (that is after all why we supported him - he was a buffer and immediate check on Iran).

Indeed that is why I think Iraq was a mistake and a failure of realpolitik - why go after the guy that didn't have the weapons, that could've been used by us to deter our bigger enemies (and supporter of our enemies)?

Hell I think this whole time we were being played along by Iran - the entire idea that there were WMDs in Iraq was used to divert our attention, military, and resources on a non-threat over personal issues, ethics, and feelings from the real problem. We were played by them.

Yer joking......right? Sy Hersh is the guy who broke open Colin Powell's cover
up of the My Lai massacre. he's a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. I would
trust what he says over Bush or Rumsfeld or Powell....anyday !

Part of me wonders if this is a trial balloon to gauge the publics reaction to action in Iran.

Interestingly, I've read an article (about a year ago) which goes into great detail to show just that. And even more interestingly, it was in a free, uber-fundementalist magazine. (Hey, I had nothing else to do while I was waiting for the train and I was curious what it said).

Which makes me wonder what happened there :D

I say no to invasion: Where would we stage it from, a free and democratic Iraq?

I think, given what little info we have now, we should go for surgical strike. Israel cannot participate (maybe private consulting or intel sharing): Their participation would be too provocative and enciteful.

Unfortunately, the whole "Iraq thing" did mess up our reputation and creditbility. Iran is the real threat we should have been preparing for in my opinion.

i sincerely hope not.

i heard diplomatic negotations described with a paraphrase of Churchill.

it's the worst option. except all the other ones.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...392687,00.html

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq has placed US forces on both sides of Iran. Iran also has a long coast adjacent to the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

Iran spends $4.3 billion USD per year on their military, only slightly less than North Korea. However, NK's GDP/capita at PPP is about 1,000$/year, while Iran is 7,000$/year. It has a half-trillion dollar economy and 70 million people in it, as opposed to NK's 30 billion dollar economy and 23 million people.

In many ways, Iran is the strongest of the Arab states. Their economy is twice that of Saudi Arabia's or Egypt's, and only Egypt has more people than Iran (and then only barely).

They are a pissant of a nation next to the USA. But, I don't know of a stronger nation that the USA has taken on in a direct military conflict since WW2.

Oh, and as an aside, I heard Iran has a bunch of carrier-killing cruise missiles apparently. No idea how reliable this data is.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I agree and I don't think Iran had to work very hard to do it.

Exactly. What better place to stage the invasion of Iran, excuse me, the liberation of Iran than from a free Iraq (to the west) and free Afghanistan (to the east)? I can't imagine the anxiety Iran must be feeling now with the "Great Satan's" military on both sides of the country. Not that I'm jumping on the Iranian bandwagon, but I imagine it's quite unsettling all things considered.


Maybe I'm being super-cynical, but....

I find it funny that that Mr. Bartlett isn't saying what exactly is inaccurate or what conclusions aren't based on facts. It's like denying it, but not denying it.....

and...

Is this the standard response? I seem to remember this phrase popping up before the Iraq war and with North Korea.

*my head 'asplodes

Could be we went into Iraq knowing the BS wouldn't fly but thought we'd scare N. Korea and Iran into submission and instead we now have them playing with nukes.

I was watching this on the O'Rielly Factor tonight when I was on break at work (I cant change the channel... I HAD to watch the O'Rielly factor, fuckin dick.) There is absolutely no reason for action in Iran and I think if the Bush administration goes for this one, the fire that we are playing with is going to get ALOT bigger. There was also a bit on the show about "homeland terrorism" in which gang members made videos threatening to kill anyone who testifies against accused criminals.

does ANYONE think we have the spare military capacity to take on Iran right now?

Bomb 'em. Sure...but do we have the ability to actually respond if this gets escalated?

if the status of the insurgency in iraq or the search for OBL in afganistan is any clue...so, we've got them surrounded. One man's pincer move is the other guy splitting your line in two. i'm not saying we'd lose to iran. but i am saying that we may get a lot more hurt than we've thought possible. for the sake of our troops over there...i pray this is nothing more than idiotic saber rattling.

As if Iraq isn't proving to be a more difficult task than originally anticipated...take Iraq, multiply it by 20, and you have Iran. Invading Iran would not only be an almost impossible task currently financially and militarily, but lack of allianceship will prove to be far worse than the "coalition" that has been produced in Iraq. Furthermore, America’s reputation will be considerably worse than it is presently (if that's possible). Most of humanity already labels the US as the "Great Satan", and who could blame them? If we invade Iran, I will likely go right along with that label myself, especially with the constant lies we were told about Iraq, and the failure it has proven to be. I truly wonder if Americans would be supportive of an Iran invasion if the time come. I say avoid Iran at all costs, the people don't deserve any bloodshed as they have enough oppression to deal with, and aside from that, it's an absolutely gorgous country and I would hate to see it be war torn.

Certainly an attack on Iran seems like a possibility, especially since US forces are both in Afganistan and Iran. Initially I thought it would be impossible, but the reality has changed so much recently. Libya, Jordan & Egypt are becoming partners with the west, the African muslim nations are sustained by european turism, Lebanon is divided, Syria is poor, the Palestinians have their butts kicked by Israel on regular basis. The only thing that could go wrong, I think, is a muslim revolution in Pakistan against Musharaff. But the problem is with the sheer size of Iran - it's bigger and better armed than Iraq was. Besides, neither the US economy, nor the public opinion could take such a large scale war. Not any time soon, anyway.

One would hope the congress (which still must approve a declaration of war) would not allow such a move. It would likely be most detrimental to our country, financially and politically, to invade Iran. I would fear for the future of these United States should we do so.

I don't believe Congress would have to approve such a move. The Administration could surely say this would just be part of the ongoing war on terror which has already been approved. Furthermore, they could argue it isn't a declaration of war at all, but a surgical strike.

Mr Mephisto

How do you all feel about a Nuclear Iran?

If this is one of Bushes goals he has 4 years to do it. I have a feeling if he does it the republican party would take a major hit next election.

i know that the neocons have entertained the illusion that iran is next for a long time.
i know that a war seems to be the necessary precondition for public approval of far-right policies.
i would not be surprised to find tha hersh is correct.
i would not be surprised to see the bushites attempt to invade iran.
but it would be a fiasco.
iraq would be a day in the park.
it would be bloody lunacy.

I'm waiting for FoxNews to do a "Countdown to Declaration of War Against Iran!" I mean, once they do a countdown, we know that a week later it'll be declared, right? Right?

*sigh*

About the same as a nuclear U.S, a nuclear Israel, a nuclear N.Korea, a nuclear Pakistan, a nuclear India, a nuclear Russia, etc,..etc,..etc,...

This is just a shot in the dark, but maybe the U.S could try some extended good old fashioned diplomacy rather than deciding on an invasion built on bullshit intelligence like that concerning Iraq (See bullshit intel on WMD from Israel, Pakistan, Kuwait to name a few)

besides, the only thing the bushites seem good at is fabricating crises.
they are working on trying to do it relative to social security right now.
they are laying the premises for something parallel on iran.
no doubt the obsession with iran has to do with the "hostage crisis" and neocon vanity about american military hegemony.
they obviously do not learn quickly.
it is really a problem that these clowns remain in power.

It is odd that everyone thinks the insurgents are holding us back in Iraq. They are more of a pest that we are not allowed to hunt down and destroy, because of the collateral damage. We are trying to win hearts and minds, which is important, but at the cost of letting the insurgents live.

How are we not fighting the "insurgents"? Also, it's a bit late to win their hearts and minds as plenty of "collateral damage" has been done.

How are we fighting them? We are restrained to basically reacting to their attacks. There could be for more collateral damage.

you would also think that those who continue, for whatever unknown reason, to support this absurd war in iraq could at least find a less self-defeating expression than fighting for "hearts and minds"....it is not at though it is not tied to the last large-scale military fiasco the americans participated in...there, the assumption was that somehow burning villages and massacring civilians could be outweighed by various Important Projects--obviously a total failure. same thing is happening in iraq--for example, if the americans are working to win "hearts and minds" you would think that they would maybe have not stood by while the iraqi museum was looted or not put an arms depot in the ruins of bablyon or used naplam in the context of the fallujah action or....or....or....

I'm not sure how to take that, as the only thing I find objectionable is the massacre of civilians. I would not have a problem destroying a village, or city for that matter, that was supporting my enemy. I also believe the Fallujah fiasco was doomed from the start. You can't say for a week beforehand that you are going to attack, and expect it to work as desired.

Sorry for the threadjack...end.

If we didn't have the hearts and mind of the average Iraqi, then why do the terrorist need to set up snipers at polling places? Why do they need to bomb mosques? If we lost the average person's heart and mind, why those tactics be needed at all by the terrorists?

if you cant understand the absurd position the americans put themselves in simply by invading iraq--and then exacerbated by screwing up at nearly every step--because it still seems like the only plan they had was developed under teh assumption that wolfowitz was correct and that the americans would be greeted with smiles and flowers---then there is really nothing to be said.

you act as though folk were unaware that the americansupported saddam hussein's coup d'etat, supported his killing of iraqi communist party members, supported him against iran....you seem unaware that the americans amounted to a colonial presence well before bushwar got underway...

maybe try thinking about the american action in iraq as an occupation and you'd get further toward understanding the problem than you would trying to think about it in terms of the present absurd propaganda managed by the administration to sell its war to an increasingly hostile public at home, and a fractured, embittered population in iraq.

The soldiers seek out the Iraqis where they are believed to be or where they are predominately fighting and/or attacking, and eliminate them. Its a guerilla war, so in some cases, the Americans have to discover location of attack before taking action. I personally don't know standard military procedure, but I assume this to be the case, as the civilian and fighter death toll indicates. Either way, you can guarantee that we haven’t and aren’t going to win any hearts and minds.

I hope we invade them.

...and I hope we fall in doing so.

This country disgusts me.

Well, for one thing, we've already got a special forces group that is operating in Afghanistan/Pakistan, it wouldn't be that hard to move over to Iran for a little bit. For another, special forces inside of a nation does not automatically mean we are going to war with a nation. There were several operations inside of Libya for the sole purpose of gathering information, and as far as I know, major military operations haven't been conducted inside Libya's border's. We're jumping to conclusions here based on one writer's sources that may or may not be credible.

well, there's also this weekend's particularly bizarre sequence of public statements from cowboy george...

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...on/whbriefing/

note: the links are live in the original.
edit:
i find that bush refused to rule out military action against iran interesting.
particularly given that the hersh article was teh explicit prompt for asking about it.

So you want people to die so you can say " i told you so". You disgust me.

The USA has the spare military capacity to take on Iran. It wouldn't be free/cheap like Iraq was, but the USA has enough.

Draft a few million people, change the economy from peacetime to war footing, and you could steamroll Iran. To make the draft politically feasible, first you attack with insufficient forces, and open a reluctant selective draft of ex-military. If the original 'too small' force wins, all the better.

Incite Iran into declairing war on the USA. Even if you have to push forces into Iran proper. The President can deploy US forces for a limited time without the consent of congress.

I'd expect a hostile nuclear Iran to be about as scary as a hostile nuclear North Korea, and less scary than a hostile nuclear USSR.

Actually, of all the above nations, only the USA currently has a significant political 'world domination' meme in the political sphere. Iran also has this meme (the Caliphate) bouncing around amount those in power.

Isreal, N.K., Pakistan, India and Russia are mainly regional players.

The world has more than two factions. The Iraqi's don't like the USA and do not trust them. Many of them don't like and trust the rebel Iraqi forces fighting against the USA.

You do realize that this would backfire on the Republicans and their Christian supporters since entities like the internet porn site 'The MILF Hunter' would take center stage and become a reality series on Fox, thus spawning many clones.

Then the administration would declare war not only on the porn industry, but on all types of sex, except for procreation purposes between married couples, that of course being a man and a woman.

Homeland security will be forced to establish an internal department to fend off the masses of sexually frustrated people. Condoms, dildos and KY jelly will be seen as the new WMD and will hunted down and destroyed. Those people (sexuoterrorists) involved will be brought to justice. They will be viewed as 'with us or against us.'

Sorry couldn't resist. Carry on.

It's amazing how people would concede Nukes to Iran, even when it is blatantly illegal and insane for geopolitics. Grow a spine.

Hmm.. now let's compare to what I posted!

Now, do me a favor and point out where I said that! Oh wait, ya can't, because I didn't say or even allude to it. :D

This country needs to think of the consequences in taking such actions as going balls out and attacking yet another country when the FIRST invasion of a country didn't even go all that well. I'm not saying turn a blind eye to potential threats, but I hope we get smacked down one day for thinking we can just waltz through places where we aren't welcome.

If it's really a threat, present your evidence to the international body and get support. When you act alone, you look like a tyrant and deserve to get knocked the fuck out.

Same way the US took on Pakistan and India?

Oh wait... it didn't.



Mr Mephisto

So when you say you want America to fall, you are not in fact wishing the soldiers go into Iran, die all for nothing? If you mean something else, please explain what you mean. I think you re backtracking.

Thank Clinton for that, and N Korea.

Oh, right. It's Clinton's fault. I keep forgetting that. EVERYTHING'S Clinton's fault! LOL

So what's stopping Bush now? He's been in power for over 4 years. Or am I still going to hear that consistent clarion call of the conservatives "It was Clinton's fault" in 40 years time when I'm old and grey?

You know, something tells me I will...


Mr Mephisto

Well let's see, North Korea signed a treaty saying they wouldn't pursue nukes... then they threatened to break said treaty unless the US doled out, which Clinton did, and wait oh yeah they now have them anyways. Yeah I'd say that is Clinton's fault.

The question was actually about Pakistan and India. North Korea is irrelevant.

Mr Mephisto

you guys might be interested to read the article itself, which is more about a shift away from the cia for covert ops
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

most recently, hersh broke the story on the abu ghraib prison abuses. since he has been around for decades, his sources are fairly reliable gov't insiders. he does speculate at times.

are you guys really surprised that we are in iran? most are probably more concerned about actions that the administration could take.
i don't think we are invading anyone for a while. first iraq (and perhaps even israel/palestine) needs to stabilize. and although iranians may dislike their mullahs, i doubt they would appreciate an american led "liberation." hopefully these raids give us some real intelligence though.

The pursuit of nukes has been someting countries have sought since WW2 - Germany wanted it, the U.S. in response pushed with the Manhattan Project, the Soviet Union pushed for it.

Because put it this way - there are two types of powers, nuclear powers, and non-nuclear powers. The advantage is easily hands down the nuclear power. You cannot fight a conventional war while nuclear weapons hang over the field. Everyone knew what nukes could do such as the end of WW2, its not hidden knowledge.

India and Pakistan pursued these weapons because one side was hinted at doing so, the otehr had no choice but to play catch up. All these countries know that pursuing nuclear weapons is the only way to equalize the playing field once a rival has 'em be it India or Pakistan, Israel or Iran, N.Korea or China or whoever.

Nuclear weapons are their own enigma - you would think that nuclear weapons in the hands of the Soviet Union and Stalin would have been insane for geopolitics. Instead, it made both sides seek peace and actually probably kept the world from blowing itself up. Its the great paradox of nuclear weapons - they brought peace through the threat of destruction.

And nuclear weapons are only insane based upon what those countries do with it - and unless the leader is absolutely 100% nuts, most people who want power realize there is no reason to rule over a parking lot.

We all know India and Pakistan have been huge problems since they got the nukes.....

We also know how good the US is at keeping conventions (Geneva convention anyone?) Any country has a right to leave a treaty at any time. That is their sovern right, it is not against the law to do so because they make the laws for their land. Now there may be consiquences for their actions but that is a different story.

Well I guess Israel has the sovereign right to protect itself, in the context of this argument this is who it affects most. I wonder how long it takes hezbollah to detonate one of these bad boys in Tel Aviv after Iran starts pulling the bombs out of the oven?

Actually, things can be deemed illegal even if the country is not a signatory. That's what the UN is for. :)

Mr Mephisto

Not to assert any one issue, but we all know how effect the UN is at enforcing anything.

And I didn't know that UN rules were laws in independant nations. So if the UN passess a law, its law in the US? I don't think so.

Well there is the problem Johnbua. Even me, a person who thinks the UN is a joke, knows that there has to be some international presence and governance. It should never trump sovereignity, but when it comes to issues like the Nuclear weapons, and you get certain countries run by total nutjobs, I think the international community has the right and the duty to step in and put them in place, especially when these nations try to come to the same table as us.

So when the UN says we don't approve of you attacking this country does that mean by attacking that country you broke international law?

Rekna, check out UN Resolution 1441. Get back to us. We'll be waiting. Should I link it for you?

Well said Mojo.

International Law is defined by a quorom of nations signing a treaty. I believe the number if around 184.

International law can also be enforced on nations that do not recognize it; albeit usually after their defeat in war. The perfect example is the trial of Japanese War Criminals after WWII. Japan never signed or recognized the Geneva Convention. Yet hundreds of their "citizens" were executed for crimes against humanity; crimes defined with reference to the Geneva Convention.

Just because you personally don't like the UN doesn't really mean much. Just because the US doesn't comply with all UN or international treaty obligations doesn't really mean much either. If it's deemed illegal by the international community, it's illegal.

Like it or not, the only "special" thing about the US is its power. The US is not above the law, despite how many of its citizens believe it should be.

The same goes for any state, including Ireland and Australia (before anyone makes reference to where I live or my citizenship).


Mr Mephisto

UN Resolutions does not constitute International Law.

UN Resolutions, passed by the General Assembly, are not binding.


Mr Mephisto

I'm confused by your argument Mephisto you seem to be playing both sides. Does the UN set international law or not?

You think I'm back tracking, I think you're over-analyzing.

You kinda took my statement of "I hope they fall" and ran with it, turning it into a "oh, so you wish the soldiers to die all for nothing?"

Not really. I feel sorry for the soldiers. They're puppets that have to do what they're told. I don't WANT anyone to die. I just want our leaders to be taught a lesson that we ARE NOT invincible and that we can NOT just go waltzing around sticking our nose where it doesn't belong.

The war in Iraq hasn't even gone that smoothly ... 2 years later. Do you REALLY think attacking Iran is smart? They aren't an Iraq type country... these people WILL fight back, and hard. They have mentioned numerous times that they will use WMDs if attacked, and rightfully so.

If we had a full backing from the international community, that's one thing, but we don't. There is something called world order, and you can't just go running around creating disarray because you have a hunch that a country will attack you or aid terrorists. In that case, you might as well kill everyone in that entire area.. hell, the entire world, because you never know who's gonna turn against you... it's silly.

Sorry, I can see what you mean.

The short answer is yes and no. :)

UN Resolutions passed by the General Assembly are not binding.
UN Resolutions passed by the Security Assembly are deemed binding and can "authorize" the use of force; ie, the invasion or liberation of sovereign nations.

By becoming a member of the UN, you accept these conditions.

That's also why the six permanent members of the Security Council have so much power. They can veto any Security Council resolution. This is a shadow of post-WWII geo-politics. There is a movement in the UN to offer other major countries (such as Germany, India, China) permanent seats also. Not sure how far this will get, as it will devalue the current veto power the US and others enjoy.

Other things that also set International Law are signing an treaty or convention. Things such as the Geneva Convention, or the International Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. These are "law", but a country can withdraw from them; as the US has done with the INTBT.

Finally, there are agreements, protocols, conventions and treaties that can become international law once enough countries sign up. The Kyoto Protocol is a good example. Now that Russia has signed up and ratified the treaty, it has become law. The US ans Australia have not signed, but that is irrelevant as they can now be penalized by the so-called Kyoto Club until they change their behaviour or sign up. Whether that happens or not is debatable.

Mr Mephisto

For the record, Mr Mephisto, I think you are a little off on your facts. There are 5 permanant chairs in the SC being US, Britain, France, Russia, China.

You can twist and turn what you said. What you wrote is what you wrote. I think you are a punk. I may be taking the chance of getting banned, but I'm gonna take that chance. If the Mods let a statement like the one you posted stand, they should have no problem with letting someone calling you out on it stand.

3.....2......1.......

Sorry, my bad. I was just reading how Germany wanted to be the sixth.

Mental typo. :)

Mr Mephisto

:lol:

You people are too much. :D

Difference is that he didn't insult anyone personally...whereas you just did. Nobody should get banned for their opinions just because it differs from yours.

I think you seriously underestimate the problem of draft resistance. if uncle sam came knocking for another war...i think it would be a real issue to get folks to go. i just don't think we have the political resolve to do any of that. if there was another devastating attack...yeah. but absent that, we're looking at the current volenteer force. with that? i don't think we can effect much of anything past air strikes in Iran. at least not with out substantially changing other deployments such as S. Korea.

Free? Cheap? Like Iraq was? Is there any reasonable explanations for these comments?

article came up in rice's confirmation hearings
i guess this is an update on the official position
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/po...?pagewanted=37

Sounds like they are not denying that the US is operating inside Iran which to me is the same as admiting they are.

How could the US even fathom considering flushing a toilet in Iran, let alone invade it? With the controversy they created in Iraq? No WAY could the US have plans to invade Iran.

Are they spying on Iran? Probably.
Are they trying to spook Iran? Probably.

If the US attacked Iran, I think WW4 would break out. With Chiraq carrying up the rear guard.

Trying to spook Iran isn't going to work. Not only are they not in fear, but they will prove it with nuclear weapons if need be. I wouldn't blame them if they do either.

Cut your nose to spite your face?

not the first time you've used that line.

Self hating Americans are a myth right? Seems we have a decent number here on the board.

Also wouldn't be the first time that you had let the saying ring true.

Explain to me how opposing war equates to self-hating?

I don't think American's hate America (i know i don't). But I do hate our current administration and policy. This country has been hijacked by a radical group of people who are justifying their actions on something that a large part of America base their life on (the bible). Unfortunatly for anyone who knows the bible they know this adminstrations actions are in direct contrast with the bible. Unfortunatly most of the America's who base their life on the bible don't actually read the bible.

You are a radical fringe thinking liberal pacifist. You harp on the administration for such and such illegalities, yet it's straight if you let some loon fundamentalists who convene national business to chants of "Death to America" and "Death to the zionists" get nukes. Maybe you don't realize this, but evil exists. If takes people with spines to stand up to said evil, merely wishing for peace and fluffy bunnies and rainbow sunshine won't ever make it a reality. Remember appeasement with Hitler? Nobody had the spine to stand up to him when he violated international law, and look what happened. Here you are conceding nuclear weapons to sociopaths who would kill just as soon as look at you, and there you sit smug and safe in your chair wishing injury and harm to your country and country men because you don't like the administration. War is an ugly reality but it's a necessity because it's obvious that diplomacy will do nothing with these asshats, just like it hasn't done anything in North Korea over the last 11 years.

Where is any of this coming from? Where does the bible fit into anything happening in the world today? How has this country been hijacked? I'm pretty sure Bush has been legally elected twice, and acted with declarations from Congress. Whatever may or may not be suspect, the bible does not fit in, it's in response to changing geopolitical winds.

I'm just disappointed. We could be so much more to the world, but we choose instead to bomb shit and play with our toys in the sand.

Anyway...

I don't think the current administration gives a great almighty crap if the military is spread too thin or public opinion, at least on this issue, because he believes he's doing what's 'right.' The military was already spread pretty thin in Afghanistan when they decided to enroll us in Nation Building 101 at Iraqi U. Promising us a clean, quick and decisive victory and delivering...well.... We then moved on to posturing towards North Korea despite the difficulties mounting in Iraq. Iran just seems to be the next 'logical' step in the solution. All this despite the poll numbers, public opinion and mounting criticism from fellow politicians, political pundits and what passes for the 'media' these days.

I've watched the news these last few days and all the administration seems to be interested in is dancing around the issue. Deny, deny, deny, but be very vague as to what it is your denying. Watch the language, we can argue semantics and syntax later, which again, seems to be modus operandi.

I expect the vast majority of the Congress to kowtow as it's politcally expedient to maintain the status quo. I also expect a lot of bitching, pissing and moaning from what's left. Nothing substantive. Just enough to make some noise so they can draw a few more cameras their way. I lost my faith in Congress' ability to stand up for anything substantive when in their ambivilence they 'voted' away the War on Terror. So, I expect them to do very little to 'stop' anything other than a repeal of a cost-of-living or salary increase, they we'd hear all holy hell.

Regardless, the question that keeps popping up in my mind is how hard would it be to garner support to get rid of Iran? How many countries out there are scared shitless at the possibility of Iran having nuclear capability?

For the record, Iraq was one of the most successful and decisive military campaigns ever waged, the post war occupation is where all the trouble lays and I don't think anyone said it was going to be all fine and dandy. Also our presence was never a hinderance in Afghanistan, I bet at the peak of troop deployment it was never above the number of troops stationed in korea, it was a limited war.

Yet Americans are allowed to possess nukes and shove their beliefs unto countries because they abuse their status and feel they have a God given right? And you wonder why they chant "Death to America"? It isn’t too difficult to figure out.

Yes, you are correct, evil exists, and America is no better than Iran, Iraq or N Korea in terms of "evil", as has been proven for the past 50 years. Unfortunately, it's your type of hateful and angry mentality that initiates conflicts which escalates to senseless wars. If only humanity believed in peace and "bunnies and rainbow sunshine’s" rather than destroying our fellow man, we wouldn't be riddled with violence, hatred and death. Maybe instead of focusing massive amounts of time, energy and money on destroying and killing to solve issues, we could use that energy as positive and try and learn how and why we have so much violence in the world, why people or groups possess so much hatred and how can we prevent it. Answering violence with violence will end up with violence. It will continue to be a never ending circle, and this is not a way to solve issues.
If you have a dog that is not behaving properly, do you shoot it in the head or do you train it to learn? We, as humanity, must take it step by step in order to reach our goals, and war is a never ending train ride to nowhere but our own self-destruction.

Unfortunately, you are right, I am more than likely living in a fantasy world in which peace is possible, and in reality, it is an impossibility as long as we have people who believe violence should be solved with more violence. It saddens me to know that our existence will likely cease due to our own greed and hatred. I hope it doesn’t take a humanity-ending massive disaster beyond any control to make us realize killing each other is indeed senseless when viewing the big picture…because unfortunately by then, it would be too late.

EDIT: And I never wished harm to anyone, I simply stated military action will result in nuclear action which is something to be expected.

We never signed a treaty saying we wouldn't simple as that. Besides at that we aren't a repressive theocratic regime that knowingly aides and supports terrorism

Pacifism is a disease, it's a weak mentality. First off we are better then Iraq and Iran. How many people have been purposely put to death because they disagree with our leaders? I don't recall us openly and knowingly supporting terrorism such as Hezbollah or Hamas or Al Qaeda. How many people have repressesd? Oh that's right, in the last 5 years we have freed over 50 million people from murderous repressive regimes, motives aside, the numbers don't lie!

And yes it would be nice if everyone thought of fluffy bunny sunshine, but guess what bub, reality dictates that there are some fucked up people in the world who don't. You try tea time with Hitler, I'll just go and drop a boot in his ass ok? What are you going to do when some deranged asshole pulls a strap on you? Put a tulip in the barrel?

The reality us human beings are fucked up creatures, you can work peaceably though, tell me how that works for you.

War and training dogs are different, animals are not cognitive assfucks like us. Evil and war are a reality and part of our nature, that's something you must realize and deal with it.

That's a real tear jerker, but as I've said on the boards before, Idealism has no place in politics, you must realize the reality of the situation. We've been struggling with the same old bullshit since the dawn of time, things aren't going to change anytime soon.

I take umbrage at you stating I have a disease and a weak mind.


Mr Mephisto

"Pacifism is a disease, a weak mentality"
"Humans are fucked up"
"Humans are cognitive assfucks"
"same old bullshit since the dawn of time"

Like I said, it's this mentality from which conflict arises. A never ending circle to our own destruction.

No conflict doesn't arise from my mentality. I don't go looking to start shit, I'm just not going to get punked if trouble comes finding me. There is a big difference.

I was speaking in general terms. Sure, if some crazy pulls a strap on you like you stated, you must defend yourself at any cost neccessary, but it is that same mentality in which that same crazy has that makes him pull a strap on you in the first place. This was the point I was trying to make earlier when I stated that we need to focus our resources to discover what leads someone to want to pull a strap on you rather than killing that person to show him and others that killing is wrong.

Well if I'm just chillin' minding my business Austrian style, and some fuck comes in annexing unprovoked, or if I'm just walking down the street and some guy pulls his strap, that is not the same mentality. I'm minding my business, he is the crazy asshole who is violent and needs to be put out.

Yes, but he also has the mentality that humans are fucked up assholes that should be put down. I'm not saying it makes you a demented asshole for defending yourself, I'm simply saying that we need to focus our energy on preventing people from becoming sick fucks who want to harm and kill, and responding with the same actions isn't going to get us anywhere as a people.

Well, shit, after all this talk, I remember why its better to just remember why people go to war and not get involved in the talks.

I think the biggest thing to do is take a step back and realize what you are all saying - you all sound crazed.

No one is saying its your mentality but I think if you want to react to every comment like that, then yes, people will start thinking of it that way. Chill out - angry minds and reactions create more problems, cooler minds prevail.

Which is the very point of been trying to make.

I think if everyone sat back, had a beer (getting drunk usually wont help), and just relaxed (I should stop reading politics again), life expectancy and health would go way up :thumbsup: