Debate and Discussion

Iran - Should we Invade?
trevoramueller at 10:00AM, Dec. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 9-17-2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7128360.stm

Apparently, although the US NIE has reported that Iran has not been making nuclear weapons, Bush still wants to invade.

Should we invade Iran? Do you think it would help keep our country / our country's interests safer?
My Drunk Duck Comics:


Nominated for numerous web awards, see more news at My Website
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:33PM
bobhhh at 10:12AM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
trevoramueller
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7128360.stm

Apparently, although the US NIE has reported that Iran has not been making nuclear weapons, Bush still wants to invade.

Should we invade Iran? Do you think it would help keep our country / our country's interests safer?

no.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
ozoneocean at 10:31AM, Dec. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
Indeed. Only an inveterate moron would advocate that course of action, especially with the stark proof of the failure, stupidity, and pointlessness of such endeavours sitting there and festering horribly in Iraq.

The young Bush once talked about an “Axis of evil”, not a concept he himself came up with, that was a speech writer, but still it was quite inverted: The “evil” ones are those who create war.

What'd make the US safer and help its interests more than anything else is peace with Iran and good diplomatic relations. Think about it.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
albone at 10:38AM, Dec. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 413
joined: 10-27-2006
ozoneocean
Indeed. Only an inveterate moron would advocate that course of action, especially with the stark proof of the failure, stupidity, and pointlessness of such endeavours sitting there and festering horribly in Iraq.

The young Bush once talked about an “Axis of evil”, not a concept he himself came up with, that was a speech writer, but still it was quite inverted: The “evil” ones are those who create war.

What'd make the US safer and help its interests more than anything else is peace with Iran and good diplomatic relations. Think about it.

Yes, and that moron is the elected highest official in the land. Gads, how did it come to this?

Co-sign on what you say about peace with Iran. Man that'd be something great, eh?
You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor!
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:48AM
bobhhh at 10:57AM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
albone
ozoneocean
Indeed. Only an inveterate moron would advocate that course of action, especially with the stark proof of the failure, stupidity, and pointlessness of such endeavours sitting there and festering horribly in Iraq.

The young Bush once talked about an “Axis of evil”, not a concept he himself came up with, that was a speech writer, but still it was quite inverted: The “evil” ones are those who create war.

What'd make the US safer and help its interests more than anything else is peace with Iran and good diplomatic relations. Think about it.

Yes, and that moron is the elected highest official in the land. Gads, how did it come to this?

Co-sign on what you say about peace with Iran. Man that'd be something great, eh?

If you stop to think about it, Iran has every reason to be fearful and distrustful of us. They are not going to start a war with us, but will continue to fund proxies to give us trouble until we leave their doorstep. Their bluster is really disguising fear. Although we cannot really win in Iran, as in Iraq, Iranians only need peer across their border to see what mess we could make of their country.

Meanwhile we sit here and complain about gas prices. I feel embarrassed when people claim that terrorists will take the fight to us. Iraq and Afganistan are in ruins. That will never happen here. If our electricity was cut off for 5 or 6 hours a day, we would vote everyone of these people out of office. But since we are safe and secure in our little bubble here, we can ignore that the Middle east is a mess of our continued responsibility and that hatred and anger for our presence is justified.

If we just left them alone, the world would be much safer. After all, if there really was a terrorist nuclear threat, don't you think Russia and China, and even Europe would be likely to quash it?
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
TnTComic at 11:02AM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
trevoramueller
Should we invade Iran? Do you think it would help keep our country / our country's interests safer?

No and no.

Frankly, I'm tired of people thinking we have the right to invade anybody.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
imshard at 11:39AM, Dec. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
wow we going for a royal flush of wars we can't afford?

I don't think that the “the right to invade” is the driving force here. Pro-war proponents have their own reasons, however with this report they look paltry.

As for why Iran is a touch paranoid? Research “false flag” operations especially in regards to Iran. With some discretion you can can screen out the crazy conspiracy theories and find accurate records dating back to the rise of the Ayatollahs. Thens form your own opinions.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
TnTComic at 11:53AM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
imshard
I don't think that the “the right to invade” is the driving force here.

That's my point, Americans now don't even think about invasion being right or wrong anymore. Invasion, the act of it. They think its something that America simply has a right to do when it feels it is justified.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
mapaghimagsik at 12:19PM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Well, the really funny thing is that Bush has said the NIE provides a warning about Iran, since now we have *proof* they had a program until 2003.

So, we should *still* have sanctions against Iran!

You do know the rest of the drill, right?

We push for sanctions in the UN. The UN says, “You're batshit crazy. STFU”
We say, “See, the UN doesn't support us, we tried everything!”

Then we develop a coalition. Maybe Iceland will appoint an observer again, and we'll call Iceland a “strategic partner” then we'll “go it alone”.

Somewhere, the word “cakewalk” will be thrown .
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
kyupol at 12:34PM, Dec. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Iran - Should we Invade?

Its not a good idea.

- Iran HAS a properly equipped army and has superior numbers than that shit army of Saddam Hussein who cant even provide proper combat boots and feed them properly. Search youtube for Iranian military equipments. Theres even a vid of an Iranian UAV spying on a US ship. It was hanging around for at least 5 minutes.

- Iran has long range missiles, chemical, and bio weapons.

- Iranian troops fight for Islam. Not for some loser dictator. It is known that people who fight for a religion or who have a ‘God’ figure to motivate them will have a high morale. In WW2, Japanese troops fought for the Emperor who they saw as ‘God’. No wonder they fought more bravely than the Germans who would surrender if they are in a bad tactical position.

- Iran has clout with other groups in Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout the middle east. Fuck with Iran and Iran wont have a problem mobilizing those groups on their payroll. Therefore, war will spread throughout the middle east. It wont be as isolated as Saddam's Iraq.

- Besides, even if Iran happened to have the same shitty army of the Taliban or the Palestinians, the fact that they're sitting on oil can greatly affect the world economy.


NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
mapaghimagsik at 2:16PM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
I think deciding whether its right to invade because of the military strength of the enemy is kinda weird.

Its like. “Gosh, I wish I could kill them all without getting hurt.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
spacehamster at 2:42PM, Dec. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 504
joined: 8-3-2007
You know, it used to be that Bush had to at least be able to pretend the countries he was threatening to invade had WMDs.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:50PM
mapaghimagsik at 2:49PM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Yeah, it started with “they have WMDs”

Then there was Colin Powell's dismal performance at the UN. A Kennedy moment it was not.

then it turned into “they had a program!”

A circus. A total circus


last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
DAJB at 2:50PM, Dec. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
mapaghimagsik
Well, the really funny thing is that Bush has said the NIE provides a warning about Iran, since now we have *proof* they had a program until 2003.

So, we should *still* have sanctions against Iran!

You do know the rest of the drill, right?

We push for sanctions in the UN. The UN says, “You're batshit crazy. STFU”
We say, “See, the UN doesn't support us, we tried everything!”

Then we develop a coalition. Maybe Iceland will appoint an observer again, and we'll call Iceland a “strategic partner” then we'll “go it alone”.

Somewhere, the word “cakewalk” will be thrown .

And don't forget: “it'll be all over by Christmas”.
I've lost count of the number of wars prefaced with that little gem.

(And it's seasonal, too!)
;)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
albone at 6:13PM, Dec. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 413
joined: 10-27-2006
bobhhh
I feel embarrassed when people claim that terrorists will take the fight to us.

No, no, no….they are going to swim over here and….take the fight to us.

We don't have to be buddies with Iran, but we talked our way out of the cold war with the USSR…and won! So, I don't think the Iraq strategy needs to be “We're going through Iran.”
You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor!
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:48AM
horseboy at 8:24PM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 139
joined: 8-27-2006
I have no doubt in my mind that we could take Iran. I don't think we should, though.

I listen to a lot of radio from Baltimore via the internet still. They've got a girl that's actually one of the “student protesters” in Iran. We've actually got a lot of support with the younger generation. They're tired of being in a back water spit hole and are trying to bring the country into the 20th century. They want pizza and cell phones. They don't want to blow themselves up. There's just a crusty old cadre of fanatics screwing it up for everybody. You take care of them, and Iran would take care of itself. In short a perfect target for a gold ol' CIA black op. Or at least it would have been if the Democrats in Congress hadn't demanded to know the details of our CIA program in Iran in public.

*Head hits table* Ever get the feeling that they just want to kill people?
There is no such word as “alot”. “A lot” is two words.
Voltaire
Never seek for happiness, it will merely allude the seeker. Never strive for knowledge, it is beyond man's scope. Never think, for in though lies all the ills of mankind. The wise man, like the rat, the crocodile, the fly, merely fulfills his natural function.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
bobhhh at 10:52PM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
horseboy
I have no doubt in my mind that we could take Iran. I don't think we should, though.

I listen to a lot of radio from Baltimore via the internet still. They've got a girl that's actually one of the “student protesters” in Iran. We've actually got a lot of support with the younger generation. They're tired of being in a back water spit hole and are trying to bring the country into the 20th century. They want pizza and cell phones. They don't want to blow themselves up. There's just a crusty old cadre of fanatics screwing it up for everybody. You take care of them, and Iran would take care of itself. In short a perfect target for a gold ol' CIA black op. Or at least it would have been if the Democrats in Congress hadn't demanded to know the details of our CIA program in Iran in public.

*Head hits table* Ever get the feeling that they just want to kill people?
Are you tripping???

We couldn't take Iraq or Afghanistan, how are we suddenly able to take Iran? What are you going to do? Drop a Nuke? Invade with overwhelming force? Commit genocide or forced exile? Becaue it's going to take such drastic measures to displace an entire government. This is Iran, not Iraq. Under the Shah they became fully westernized, they aren't a backwater shithole, do your fucking homework!!

You have a stable, relatively moderate, partially westernized society there. You think those people are going to greet us as liberators? If it wasn't for us mucking around trying to invade every oil producing nations soverignty, they might actually morph into that holy grail: a stable, peaceful muslim democracy.

They are no threat to us, we are a threat to them!!

We could take Iran, indeed. Why do people think this way against all reason?
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
ozoneocean at 2:02AM, Dec. 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
Even that pizza and cell-phone idea is unfortunate… Winning over a country by superficial fripperies? :)


Actually, when you really think about it though, I think that was the argument that mainly “won” the cold war. That was a non-conflict that was comprehensively reinterpreted as some kind of clever win for the US and turned that ineffective dangerous moron Regan into some kind of hero.

No, the US “won” only in as much as the USSR stopped competing. I say the “pizza” argument ideas likely swung it because in the end the people of Russia and all over the Soviet bloc were just really dissatisfied. They all wanted more… They had this idealistic, unreal, fantasy version of what the west was like and they wanted it for themselves, it was created by decades of propaganda from the west, silly cultural imports, and just not enough to satisfy them provided by their own culture. lol!
In the end the tide of public opinion that wanted reform and change was just far too much. Every single policy agency and spy agency in the west was utterly shocked and had absolutely no idea what had happened. The situation was left to opportunists like Regan, and later Yeltzen in Russia and people like Slobodan Milosovich elsewhere in the bloc to take advantage of things and reinvent themselves as heroes.

If you want to change things in Iran (which you really should have no place in), best to go through the young because they're idealistic, and also usually a bit stupid lol!
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
DAJB at 3:46AM, Dec. 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
ozoneocean
Even that pizza and cell-phone idea is unfortunate… Winning over a country by superficial fripperies? :)
It worked in the UK. The US has almost completely won us over with its pizzas and cell-phones. Okay, that's not entirely true. It also took McDonalds and X-Box but the principle is still valid. Don't underestimate the power of the frippery!

ozoneocean
No, the US “won” only in as much as the USSR stopped competing. I say the “pizza” argument ideas likely swung it because in the end the people of Russia and all over the Soviet bloc were just really dissatisfied. They all wanted more… They had this idealistic, unreal, fantasy version of what the west was like and they wanted it for themselves, it was created by decades of propaganda from the west, silly cultural imports, and just not enough to satisfy them provided by their own culture. lol!
True. I used to work with a number of Germans. Those from (the former) East Germany will readily tell you that one of the catalysts for dissatisfaction was the ability to receive TV broadcasts from (the former) West Germany. It seems they thought everyone in the west was living a Dallas-type life-style!

Is it any wonder they're now disappointed with what they've ended up with?!

ozoneocean
If you want to change things in Iran (which you really should have no place in), best to go through the young because they're idealistic, and also usually a bit stupid lol!
Sadly, you can't just force change on another country, no matter how much it would benefit from it. The force for change has to come from within, otherwise the cultural, political and economic status quo is too strong. Unless the vast majority of the population really want it, the only way the change can be effected is by imposing a rigid militaristic regime just as bad as the one before.

This has not only been proven by recent events in Iraq but also throughout history from the Roman empire to the Communist regimes in China, the USSR and elsewhere. As much as the more enlightened parts of Iranian society might want change and welcome western support for change, the reality is that the majority currently hate the US (and the UK) even more than they might hate their current lunatic overlords. Much like Iraq, really.

Invasion would therefore be a(nother) disaster for all concerned.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 8:16AM, Dec. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
bobhhh
You have a stable, relatively moderate, partially westernized society there. You think those people are going to greet us as liberators?

Well, it worked for the Nazis in France… At some point it's got to work for the US in the Middle East. They just haven't found the right country to invade yet. It might be Trans Jordan or Syria where they will be greated as liberators. Just because it didn't work the first two or three times doens't mean it will never work.
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
horseboy at 9:41AM, Dec. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 139
joined: 8-27-2006
bobhhh
Are you tripping???

We couldn't take Iraq or Afghanistan,
We did take Iraq and Afghanistan. We're now having trouble with the “hold” part. Hell, we took Afghanistan with three C3's with a squad of delta each for close support on the ground.

how are we suddenly able to take Iran? What are you going to do? Drop a Nuke?
Well, I am from Missouri. ;)
Invade with overwhelming force? Commit genocide or forced exile? Becaue it's going to take such drastic measures to displace an entire government.
And why I said it wasn't our best course of action.
This is Iran, not Iraq. Under the Shah they became fully westernized, they aren't a backwater shithole, do your fucking homework!!
They said the same thing about Iraq back in '91. Then we alpha struck them back 200 years.
You have a stable, relatively moderate, partially westernized society there. You think those people are going to greet us as liberators? If it wasn't for us mucking around trying to invade every oil producing nations soverignty, they might actually morph into that holy grail: a stable, peaceful muslim democracy.
No, I think we should pull a few low key assassinations of people who would be hostile to us and let the people that like us take over in their wake. Nice and quiet, with a minimal loss of life for everybody.
They are no threat to us, we are a threat to them!!
They are a threat to our allies, and by honour and international treaty we are required to help them. I'm just saying a quick, minimally blood letting coup would be best for everyone involved.
There is no such word as “alot”. “A lot” is two words.
Voltaire
Never seek for happiness, it will merely allude the seeker. Never strive for knowledge, it is beyond man's scope. Never think, for in though lies all the ills of mankind. The wise man, like the rat, the crocodile, the fly, merely fulfills his natural function.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
bobhhh at 10:03AM, Dec. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Our black ops have too often come back to bite us in the ass. Blowback is a bitch.

Iran are not aggressors, we are. If they are a threat it is because we threaten their sovereignty.

If you really want to diffuse the threat from the middle east, you'll wean the US off of fossil fuels.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
ozoneocean at 10:57AM, Dec. 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
Bad things about Iran:

1) Ahmedinejhad (?) says mean things about Jews;
Yeah, he's not actually Hitler though. In his case I'm pretty sure he just says it to piss off Israel, who hurl more than enough threats back at him.

2) Women have reduced freedoms;
This isn't good. I don't care if women wear niqaabs, hijabs, burkhas, whatever, as long as they have some choice in the matter. But it's not just clothing, theirs restrictions on the sorts of relationships they can have, the work they can do etc. This is dark ages tribal thinking that is bad for the women and holds the whole country back.

3) They don't like the USA;
They're just not going to get over the grudge against the US for what they did to Iran back in the 70's, not to mention the way the US, Britain, Russia etc let them hang out to dry when they were being bombarded with chemical weapons by the Iraqis in the 80's, the way all those “freedom loving” countries actively prevented the UN from censuring or taking any action at all against Iraq for that isn't something they'll ever forget.

4) They sponsor terrorism.
Well, no they don't… It's claimed that they do by exactly the same liars who said they were building nuclear ICBMS, the same idiots whose strategy in Iraq failed so badly; Iran is the best scape goat in existence. Yep, it's a Shi'a country, and elements there will be sympathetic to the Shi'a majority in Iraq… Buuuuut in case no one noticed, the Shi'a are the ones with most to gain from stability in Iraq and most to lose from ongoing violence. etc. You do the maths. Basically it wouldn't be official Iranian policy to encourage terrorists in Iraq, even if some mad or greedy low level turds do.
Besides, Iran has just as much trouble from that sort of terrorism as everywhere else in the region. ;)

5) They control a very large proportion of the world's fossil fuel energy reserves;
Yes they do. So what? They sell it at a fair price and they'll go on selling it because without that trade they're stuffed. Yes they could cut it off, by why should anyone make them want to do that and how long would they last if they did?

6) The social restrictions on all citizens are negative, harsh and backward;
These again are holding the country back in so many ways, but mostly culturally…

7) They're a theocracy that has a rather strict interpretation of their religion and they're seen as models to aspire to by politically active Muslim groups in the region and other Muslim countries;
This is slightly problematic for places like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria, but not something Iran can be totally blamed for. They do export their political ideology, like a lot of countries, and that can have a destabilising effect, but then it always does… How many wars have been fought for republics, democracy, because of capitalism, communism…?

So as I see it, the main problem with Iran isn't their danger to others, it's entirely internal. It's the trouble with extreme right wing regimes everywhere: lack of social freedoms. But that's something they should really tackle for themselves.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
mapaghimagsik at 11:04AM, Dec. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Take means nothing without hold. Ask the Russians about that in Afghanistan.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 7:45PM, Dec. 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
mapaghimagsik
Take means nothing without hold. Ask the Russians about that in Afghanistan.

Depends on your point of view. After all, what is the purpose of war with Iraq and possibly Iran?

It's all about distraction. With a war to look at people may not notice the collapsing economy. It's not working too well, but to be fair the economy is really falling apart quickly.
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
bobhhh at 10:13PM, Dec. 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Mister Mxyzptlk
It's all about distraction. With a war to look at people may not notice the collapsing economy. It's not working too well, but to be fair the economy is really falling apart quickly.

You think these guys are blowing trillions of bux on war in the middle east as a political distraction?

You have no idea how nuts this sounds even for you.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 6:47AM, Dec. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
bobhhh
You think these guys are blowing trillions of bux on war in the middle east as a political distraction?

Their motto is “spend all we want, we'll print more…”
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
TitanOne at 8:36PM, Dec. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 199
joined: 5-12-2007
albone
Yes, and that moron is the elected highest official in the land. Gads, how did it come to this?

Co-sign on what you say about peace with Iran. Man that'd be something great, eh?

Oh, no, we can't have that. World Peace is bad. It's destabilizing. If peace in the Middle East broke out, the people would be defenseless against civil upheaval.

Upheaval is bad, when other peoples' problems can be solved so much more easily by using our own troops as Bullet Stoppers. On their soil.

That's why we need 100,000 US troops stationed in Germany and Japan, too. You never know when upheavals might occur, so we send our boys all over the world to 135 countries to prevent destabilization.

Makes lots of sense doesn't it? That's real grownup US foreign policy, none of that Kook Ron Paul or Moonbat Leftie stuff.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:30PM
CharleyHorse at 5:40AM, Dec. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
Should the United States invade Iran?

Let's try to break this down into several categories. From a first grade mindset, yes we should invade because then we can control all that lovely oil, keep our permanent war footing economy indefinitely stimulated, . Also we can teach the rest of the world to ‘respect’ the mightiest nation on earth. Wave our little flags vigorously!

Assuming no fundamental understanding of cause and effect and the concept of international repercussions then the traditional far-rightist thinking expressed above seems a ‘no-brainner’ guarantee of national success.

Unfortunately the world doesn't actually operate along the lines cherished by most far-rightists, as the last three-quarters of a decade has amply demonstrated to everybody EXCEPT those same far-rightists.

No, the U.S.A. should NOT invade Iran for a variety of very practical reasons:

1] After years of stretching our military service branches too thin in the personnel department by simultaneously occupying and providing ‘security’ for two middle-eastern nation while also sticking with our commitment to keep bases operating around the world, we have about gotten to the point where we are going to reap what we have sowed by way of robbing Peter to pay Paul. We don't have the necessary military personnel or equipment to hold onto what we've already grabbed while trying to grab for more.

2] Sure, although this nation was under an endless war economy footing from the beginning of WW II until The famous ‘Peace Dividend’ discussions that arose after the ending of the Cold War with the collapse of the Soviet Union during the early days of the 1990s, it is difficult to sustain the concept of national freedoms and opportunities for all under a war economy and military mindset national footing. Notice that only the wealthier got wealthier under GW Bush? In part, this is because he and Cheney deliberately shifted the nation back onto a permanent war footing economy and started rigging the economic game and national policy decisions to warp the economy to favor the selfish interests of the wealthy. But no nation can indefinitely survive a war footing economy and military mindset and remain a functional democracy with justice, freedoms, and equal opportunities for all.

3] If you add the two big issues together then you begin to realize that we have already bitten off more than we can chew as a nation, much less swallow but also realize that this realistically leaves only the carpet bombing option for ‘taking’ Iran.

4] Realistically Iran is merely a larger, slightly harder version of Iraq if we disregard the consequences of sending over an air fleet to reduce the nation as it is today to a smoking sea of border to border rubble. Since we don't have the military personnel to sustain a boots-on-the-ground military venture while still holding on to what we have already taken, all we can realistically do to take Iran is to reduce it to the stone age via conventional bombing runs. There's no need for nukes. We have enough air power to overwhelm any other nation on earth.

5] What will our neighbors say? Again, this is a remonstration to the few far-rightists among us DrunkDuckers. Any nation can be economically isolated if the rest of the world community gets pissed off enough. This CAN happen to the United States because there are now options to purchasing U.S. goods or hiring U.S. services. Come down to that, how would our own nation react if all of a sudden there were an significant economic embargo slapped upon the United States by angry nations and our spoiled citizens could no longer get their hands on low-priced goods? Ouch!

So, no, we should NOT invade Iran. But the problem is that GW Bush is pretty much a rogue president and our democrat dominated legislated branch did not gain enough seats in either house during the previous mid-term election to over-ride many presidential vetos, and the republican representatives and senators are still playing partisan political politics with the health of this nation's future and all but rubber stamping any war-based decision the Bush Administration advances. So, as insane as it would be for this nation to attack or invade Iran it remains a fifty-fifty possibility that we; i.e., the increasingly insane thinking Bush/Cheney team might force us into another conflict before the bad news twins leave office.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
TnTComic at 6:40AM, Dec. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
bobhhh
Are you tripping???

We couldn't take Iraq or Afghanistan, how are we suddenly able to take Iran? What are you going to do? Drop a Nuke? Invade with overwhelming force? Commit genocide or forced exile? Becaue it's going to take such drastic measures to displace an entire government.

That would be “taking them”, wouldn't it? He said we could take them. We could take them. Its pretty simple. 20 years ago we took out there navy in one day. We've gotten better toys in 20 years.

It wouldn't take a nuke, it wouldn't take genocide. We could take 'em out pretty damn easily. Tomahawks and stealth make this stuff pretty easy today.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved