Bush and Walker already arguing on when to start a war with Iran.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
dank69

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,042
30,328
136
Spungo said:
What's fucked up is that nobody sees how fucked up it is. Can you imagine presidential candidates talking about rape in such a casual way?
"I think we should rape 10,000 women."
"I disagree. We should rape at least 30,000 women."
People would be horrified. Change it to "We should kill at least one million civilians" and people agree with the statement. It's unbelievable. People were upset when Clinton slept with his secretary. Where were those people when Bush and Obama killed thousands upon thousands of civilians? Clinton was nearly kicked out of office for having sex and lying about it. Bush was elected for a second term after he lied to the world so he could murder thousands of people; current estimate is up around 500,000 deaths. It's not like these were centuries apart. These were within ~5 years of each other.
Click to expand...
A normal person would look at this situation and conclude that conservatives are insane. The normal person would conclude that conservatives do not give a shit about good governance and only care about winning by slinging shit at the other team. Look at Benghazi for Christ's sake.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,498
50,652
136
Nebor said:
North Korea isn't sitting on 10% of the world's oil reserves. And the desires of the Iranian people are oppressed by their democratically elected theocratic government, necessitating exactly the kind of regime change that would be made impossible if Iran develops a nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...

'The desires of the people are oppressed by their democratically elected government' is a pretty hilarious statement.

If you think the desires of the people being oppressed by their government is a reason for regime change, we have a lot of regime changing to do it would appear, including large numbers of our allies. Hope you're ready to be deployed!
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,498
50,652
136
Sonikku

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,745
4,563
136
Atomic Playboy said:
Iran has been our biggest failing in the region since the 1980s. Afghanistan? Arm some Mujaheddin, abandon them fostering resentment and inadvertently leading to the creation of both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, then go to war with them a couple decades later when they come back and attack us in the worst act of terrorism this country has ever seen. Iraq? Give weapons to a ruthless dictator, watch him gas his own people, back track on your support only after he invades a country friendly to American business interests, get in two different wars, execute the leader and leave the region completely destabilized, inadvertently creating a breeding ground for ISIS. But Iran will be different! For one thing, it's larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined... so if you thought the fallout was bad from our dealings with those two, just you wait!

A wise person once said that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Apparently every single Republican since the 1980s has decided that was written by a communist, and our only real chance for success is to bomb some other Middle Eastern country, in a strategy that has been failing to produce positive results since the days of Saladin.
Click to expand...

Since the 80's?

Try the 50's. Republican's just don't get it.
 
M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,151
6,317
126
hal2kilo said:
Swoosh...there it goes....over your haed.
Click to expand...

Hehehehehe, I love this place.

But seriously, if the Russians get nukes they will become a much bigger threat than Iran could dream of and that will force us to nuke them cold before they can build rockets to deliver the a nuke payload. They might even try to buy those from the Iranians. You make them from centrifuge tubes from what I hear.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Doc Savage Fan said:
Why not? bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Libya didn't seem to bother many liberals.

(I'm being rhetorical for those who among us who are capable of understanding such things)
Click to expand...

As it turns out, bombing Libya wasn't a colossal mistake. Compare & contrast that to Neocon actions in the wake of 9/11. It wasn't nearly as costly in terms of lives or treasure, either, but, uhh, never mind, right?

How many shot up fucked up veterans did we get out of bombing Libya, anyway? How many dead?

Voluntarily taking on Iran in support of our Saudi & Israeli friends would likely be a helluva lot more costly than Iraq & Afghanistan combined, causing great rejoicing among our war profiteers. It wouldn't increase deficits, would it? Shoot the price of oil through the ceiling?
 
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Atomic Playboy said:
Iran has been our biggest failing in the region since the 1980s. Afghanistan? Arm some Mujaheddin, abandon them fostering resentment and inadvertently leading to the creation of both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, then go to war with them a couple decades later when they come back and attack us in the worst act of terrorism this country has ever seen. Iraq? Give weapons to a ruthless dictator, watch him gas his own people, back track on your support only after he invades a country friendly to American business interests, get in two different wars, execute the leader and leave the region completely destabilized, inadvertently creating a breeding ground for ISIS. But Iran will be different! For one thing, it's larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined... so if you thought the fallout was bad from our dealings with those two, just you wait!

A wise person once said that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Apparently every single Republican since the 1980s has decided that was written by a communist, and our only real chance for success is to bomb some other Middle Eastern country, in a strategy that has been failing to produce positive results since the days of Saladin.
Click to expand...
Point of order: We never gave weapons to Saddam. We did give him some intelligence when he was fighting our worst enemy, Iran, and we did allow some dual-use technology to be sold him, but Saddam's weapons were exclusively Russian and French.

EDIT: Except for the American-built weapons he captured from Iran.

Nebor said:
Because once they have a nuclear weapon, we can't invade them. Iran knows this, which is why they'll stop at nothing to acquire nuclear weapons. It's what I would do if I were Iran.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's the same as North Korea getting nukes - it allows a nation to do pretty much anything short of using WMD without fear of reprisal from the USA.
 
Last edited:
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Jhhnn said:
As it turns out, bombing Libya wasn't a colossal mistake. Compare & contrast that to Neocon actions in the wake of 9/11. It wasn't nearly as costly in terms of lives or treasure, either, but, uhh, never mind, right?

How many shot up fucked up veterans did we get out of bombing Libya, anyway? How many dead?

Voluntarily taking on Iran in support of our Saudi & Israeli friends would likely be a helluva lot more costly than Iraq & Afghanistan combined, causing great rejoicing among our war profiteers. It wouldn't increase deficits, would it? Shoot the price of oil through the ceiling?
Click to expand...
By your logic we shouldn't invade Iran, but we should bomb them.
 
nickqt

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,667
8,021
136
werepossum said:
Point of order: We never gave weapons to Saddam. We did give him some intelligence when he was fighting our worst enemy, Iran, and we did allow some dual-use technology to be sold him, but Saddam's weapons were exclusively Russian and French.

EDIT: Except for the American-built weapons he captured from Iran.


Exactly. It's the same as North Korea getting nukes - it allows a nation to do pretty much anything short of using WMD without fear of reprisal from the USA.
Click to expand...
We didn't sell Iraq weapons. We just sold them the chemical weapon technology, helped them build them, and then turned around when Saddam used them on his own people and on Iranians.

No harm, no foul, y'all.

werepossum said:
By your logic we shouldn't invade Iran, but we should bomb them.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly certain that at most, the argument was that bombing Libya didn't result in very many dead Americans, and probably prevented Kadhaffi from massacring thousands of people.

I'm not sure how that can be analogized to bombing Iran to stop thousands of Iranians from being massacred, unless we're bombing Iran and killing thousands of people now to prevent ourselves or our proxy Israel from bombing Iran later and killing even more thousands.

Of course, I don't think we should be bombing Iran at all, since they haven't done anything to us.
 
M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,151
6,317
126
We should bomb all those beautiful people in Iran for the sake of a bunch of shit sniveling American cowards who whimper in fear that the repressed memories of their tortured childhoods will rise into conscious awareness. Kill kill kill. What scum we have become. We are a terrorist nation on a massive scale. We are not worth the life of a single child. You filthy warmongering dogs.
 
JSt0rm

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Moonbeam said:
We should bomb all those beautiful people in Iran for the sake of a bunch of shit sniveling American cowards who whimper in fear that the repressed memories of their tortured childhoods will rise into conscious awareness. Kill kill kill. What scum we have become. We are a terrorist nation on a massive scale. We are not worth the life of a single child. You filthy warmongering dogs.
Click to expand...


Basically. That was the best thing in avatar, when all the humans talked about attacking for defense. Hello neocons.
 
Doc Savage Fan

Doc Savage Fan

Lifer
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Jhhnn said:
If you think we can subdue Iran with bombing you're a complete cretin.

The comparison of Iran to Libya was cretinous all along.
Click to expand...
It seems that it's really hard for you to stay focused on one subject....he's talking about your fail logic Einstein. Libya was a disaster and your attempt to whitewash the thousands of deaths and untold human suffering we were instrumental in creating is disgusting.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
werepossum said:
Point of order: We never gave weapons to Saddam. We did give him some intelligence when he was fighting our worst enemy, Iran, and we did allow some dual-use technology to be sold him, but Saddam's weapons were exclusively Russian and French.

EDIT: Except for the American-built weapons he captured from Iran.


Exactly. It's the same as North Korea getting nukes - it allows a nation to do pretty much anything short of using WMD without fear of reprisal from the USA.
Click to expand...

Worse enemies than the Russians at the time, the "Evil Empire"?

Do I need to drag out links to Rummy the weasel smiling for the camera with Saddam Hussein in 1983?

The Reaganites thought it was great that he started the bloodiest conflict since WW2 with the Iranians, facilitated it in every way possible short of overt military aid.

Meanwhile, they shipped arms to Iran through Israel in exchange for hostages held in Lebanon, used the money to finance the Contras, terrorists in their own right.

Yeh, that's how the Reaganites repaid Iran for the propaganda coup furnished by Iran in refusing to release the embassy hostages until after Reagan took office. I have no idea why the revolutionary govt would be bitter over half a million dead Iranians.
 
bshole

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
TheSlamma said:
Over the same ol hocus pocus BS (religion) they all have been fighting over there for the last 60 years
Click to expand...

I think it is a little more complicated that that. Iran and countries like it NEED Israel as a foil to distract from their own internal problems. This is not my own original thought I have read many articles that have stated this. It really makes sense if you think about it. If Israel did cease to exist, Iranian leadership would be reduced to attacking America, kind of like Russia.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Doc Savage Fan said:
It seems that it's really hard for you to stay focused on one subject....he's talking about your fail logic Einstein. Libya was a disaster and your attempt to whitewash the thousands of deaths and untold human suffering we were instrumental in creating is disgusting.
Click to expand...

Get back to me when the death toll approaches that of the Iraq & Afghan adventures of the Neocons, OK?

And get back on topic while you're at it, explain why we should entertain the possibility of even greater carnage in a conflict with Iran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom