• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

I never in a million years thought we'd invade Iran

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Termagant

Senior member
Mar 10, 2006
765
0
0
Bush needs to attack Iran in some way to appease his inner yearning for a trifecta of military operations. He is the War President and a trilogy of movies about his exploits to democratize the Middle East would be much better than just a movie and a sequel. Also, attacking Iran would take the focus off of Afghanistan and Iraq. The consequences of attacking Iran are for the next president to take care of, just like the consequences of occupying Iraq, just like the consequences of occupying Afghanistan amazingly will be. The guy just can't seem to get anything done.

But in 100 years we will look back and see how farsighted Bush is, at least that's what he hopes.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran is not killing anyone inside Iraq.
hahaha.... right.

And I have this really great ocean-front property in AZ for sale... you interested?
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran is not killing anyone inside Iraq.
hahaha.... right.

And I have this really great ocean-front property in AZ for sale... you interested?
There is no evidence to show any of it.

So unless you got some evidence go call up the Pentagon.

Otherwise you are WRONG
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran is not killing anyone inside Iraq.
hahaha.... right.

And I have this really great ocean-front property in AZ for sale... you interested?
Hey now, with all the global warming going on you might not be to far from the truth here.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Let me chime in with my opinion on this:
1. Anyone who thinks we are going to launch an outright invasion of Iran is foolish. After Iraq and that mess the last thing we do is go all out into Iran.
2. Iran has been exerting itself into world affairs beyond it boarders in a negative way for years. Hezbollah in Israel, the supporting of Syria and its efforts to control Lebanon through force and terrorism and assassination. And in Iraq with support and money.
3. It is way past time that we ?push? back a little against Iran. So far Iran is engaging in its policies without any type of reprisals. When Israel fights an Iranian supported Hezbollah Iran losses nothing, it is the people of Lebanon and Israel who die. In fact, Iran has never faced any type of consequences for its actions going all the way back to the Iran hostage ordeal. Don?t forget that many people in that part of the world look at us as nothing more than a playground bully. Bloody our nose a bit and we go running home to mom.
4. If we can establish that Iran is providing the insurgents in Iraq with more than just moral support through the capture of these military officials and combine that with the continuing efforts to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons we might be able to come up with a rational for some type of limited military response against Iran. (see thread where prominent liberal lawyer is drafting a legal justification for a first strike against Iran)
5. This response would almost certainly be limited to purely military targets in Iran, especially anything to do with WMD production. It could also be a huge embarrassment to their leader who talks a big game, but can not back up his statements. Plus such a strike could weaken his support at home by reinforcing the already prevalent opinion that all he had done for the people of Iran is brought economic sanctions and isolation. We could also step up efforts in supporting students and others who are trying to over throw the Iranian government.
6. Such a strike would send the message to Iran that we are done putting up with their ****** and that they better watch how they behave. As someone else pointed out, Libby was a large supporter of terrorism in the 80s until we dropped a bomb that missed al-Gaddafi by a few hundred feet.
7. Cry doom and gloom all you want about what consequences we will face if we do this. But face it; there is no way Iran wants a military conflict with the US. They could increase terrorism against us, but that would only result in more attacks against us. And the only direct threat they pose to us militarily would be to attack Iraq, and I am willing to be that the forces we have there and our overwhelming air power would beat the hell out of them, just like we beat the hell our of Iraq.
8. We will never win the war on terror as long as Iran and Syria are allowed to openly support terror groups without consequences.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
We could easily start using retalitory strikes against Iran. They kill civilians in Iraq, so we should kill their civilians. Let the civilian population revolt from within Iran. We must fight back against this aggressor. We need to let Iran know we are not going to allow them to hide behind their terrorist thugs, and their military trained terrorists. If some country keeps punching you in the nose, eventually even a sissy girl will start fighting back. I have had enough of this pussy foot, slap them lightly, kind of war. If it is war, then bring it on and lets kill some iranians. I want to see blood in the streets of Tehran, just like Baghdad. Do we have to sit back and let Iran keep bloodying our nose and killing our soldiers?

This is where I think Bush is an idiot. Bring on the 5,000 lbs bombs, the MOAB, and the Cruise Missles. We need to repay Iran for their aggression in Lebanon and Iraq. There has to be something more than a worthless UN resolution that will not be enforced. The UN is a worthless organization.
This is retarded. When Bushie and the gang say they are supplying "terrorist groups in Iraq" they mean Shiite militias involved in the fighting with their rival Sunni counterparts who are supported themselves by Al Qiada and other pro-Sunni entities. If we start killing Iranians and bombing Iranian cities the Shiites in Iraq are going to raise up in mass and open up a can of whoop ass on us because we are attacking their main supporter in the region.
 

bobdelt

Senior member
May 26, 2006
918
0
0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
we handed iraq to iran on a silver platter, now we have 2 salvagable options that i can see here:
invade iran
partition iraq to at least save the kurd and sunni areas from persian domination.

I lean toward option 2, since its what should have been done 85 years ago.
That and option #1 is impossible unless we nuke Iran. My bet is the whole thing goes to sh*t.
probably
it already is and was.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
we handed iraq to iran on a silver platter, now we have 2 salvagable options that i can see here:
invade iran
partition iraq to at least save the kurd and sunni areas from persian domination.

You might save them from "Persian domination" but you wont save them from Al Qiada influences.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran is not killing anyone inside Iraq.
hahaha.... right.

And I have this really great ocean-front property in AZ for sale... you interested?
There is no evidence to show any of it.

So unless you got some evidence go call up the Pentagon.

Otherwise you are WRONG
I'd bet good money that Iranians have been involved in the attacks in Iraq. I'd also bet that the Syrians have too. :p
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Agent11

The Kurds are playing us like a fiddle right now. They have pretty much agreed not to shoot at us if we keep giving them piles of money and weapons, which we are doing. Meanwhile, they are quietly forcing out the non-Kurds, funding/supplying terrorists in Turkey, and laying the groundwork for an independant Kurdistan.

What we are doing is funding another pain-in-the-ass problem for the future. And the current administration here will do another of its "Who knew?" shrugs when it happens.
turkish and iranian kurdistan should be part of a Kurdish nation-state.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Agent11

The Kurds are playing us like a fiddle right now. They have pretty much agreed not to shoot at us if we keep giving them piles of money and weapons, which we are doing. Meanwhile, they are quietly forcing out the non-Kurds, funding/supplying terrorists in Turkey, and laying the groundwork for an independant Kurdistan.

What we are doing is funding another pain-in-the-ass problem for the future. And the current administration here will do another of its "Who knew?" shrugs when it happens.
If you think this is a Bush administration tactic you need to review your history. We've been doing this in various parts of the world for 50 years....
Is that your best justification? if your dad ran around putting axes in peoples skulls for fun, does that mean you should do it?
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran is not killing anyone inside Iraq.
hahaha.... right.

And I have this really great ocean-front property in AZ for sale... you interested?
the ironic thing is that he should be making that comment to you. As far as i have seen, there is little evidence of iran actively and heavily contributing to the shittes, i think they have plenty of ammo and motivation already. :(
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
we handed iraq to iran on a silver platter, now we have 2 salvagable options that i can see here:
invade iran
partition iraq to at least save the kurd and sunni areas from persian domination.

You might save them from "Persian domination" but you wont save them from Al Qiada influences.
we won't save them from the al qaeda influences anyways. the least we can do is cut the bloodshed, hopefully, and maybe keep the kurds out of this. In the long run, its would probably be the best option.

I think its sad that we are steady dealing with the after effects of WW1 here, almost 90 years after it ended. A whole pile of countries created specifically so they would not work and be subject to easy foreign domination.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran is not killing anyone inside Iraq.
hahaha.... right.

And I have this really great ocean-front property in AZ for sale... you interested?
There is no evidence to show any of it.

So unless you got some evidence go call up the Pentagon.

Otherwise you are WRONG
I'd bet good money that Iranians have been involved in the attacks in Iraq. I'd also bet that the Syrians have too. :p
based on what?

Iranians and Iraqis do not even speak the same language. Not even close. Iran's second language is English not Arabic and Iraqis dont learn Farsi.
-Communication is a problem

Iran has weapons that can take out our tanks and our helicopters. The insurgency inside Iraq has none of those weapons. Iran arms Hezbollah with anti-tank weapons, so if they were arming the insurgency inside Iraq they would give them those weapons to take our our tanks.
-Insurgents do not have good weapons.

 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: Aimster
The U.S is frustrated that no evidence points to Iranians arming the insurgency so the U.S is going around detaining diplomats.

& the U.S will never invade Iran. Iran can sink a U.S carrier and the U.S will still not invade Iran. Air attacks and thd cruise missiles. That's it.
Aimster- to deny Iran's influence in Iraq right now is ridiculous....even SCIRI was supported by Iran frm the get go back when it was started in the days of Saddam as an anti-saddam party with plenty of Iranian funding.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: Tab
I think is common knowledge by now that Syria and Iran have both been involved in "helping" the Iraq insurgency. Though, I don't think there is much that we can do about it.

Wasn't one of the risks of leaving Iraq, leaving Iran the door open to go invade Saudi Arabi?
Iran would never invade Saudi Arabia.

We would bring the hammer of god upon them if they tried.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Originally posted by: Aimster

based on what?

Iranians and Iraqis do not even speak the same language. Not even close. Iran's second language is English not Arabic and Iraqis dont learn Farsi.
-Communication is a problem

Iran has weapons that can take out our tanks and our helicopters. The insurgency inside Iraq has none of those weapons. Iran arms Hezbollah with anti-tank weapons, so if they were arming the insurgency inside Iraq they would give them those weapons to take our our tanks.
-Insurgents do not have good weapons.
Look at my sig. Do all the speculating that you want on this issue, but you'll still be wrong.

First hand experience always beats out reading whatever news you're reading.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: Aimster

based on what?

Iranians and Iraqis do not even speak the same language. Not even close. Iran's second language is English not Arabic and Iraqis dont learn Farsi.
-Communication is a problem

Iran has weapons that can take out our tanks and our helicopters. The insurgency inside Iraq has none of those weapons. Iran arms Hezbollah with anti-tank weapons, so if they were arming the insurgency inside Iraq they would give them those weapons to take our our tanks.
-Insurgents do not have good weapons.
Look at my sig. Do all the speculating that you want on this issue, but you'll still be wrong.

First hand experience always beats out reading whatever news you're reading.
You must have information the U.S media doesn't.

Go write FoxNews and become famous

but whatever the debate, best of luck in Iraq and stay safe
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: Aimster
The U.S is frustrated that no evidence points to Iranians arming the insurgency so the U.S is going around detaining diplomats.

& the U.S will never invade Iran. Iran can sink a U.S carrier and the U.S will still not invade Iran. Air attacks and thd cruise missiles. That's it.
Aimster- to deny Iran's influence in Iraq right now is ridiculous....even SCIRI was supported by Iran frm the get go back when it was started in the days of Saddam as an anti-saddam party with plenty of Iranian funding.
Of course, as was predicted long before idiot Bush ever screwed the pooch in Iraq.

The fact that he invaded anyway is what is ridiculous. Now we'll pay the price.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Iran can be influencing the Shia, but there is no evidence to suggest Iran is arming anyone.

funding government officials is different than arming insurgents.

It is in Iran's best interest for Iraq not to have a war. There is no reason Iran wants to see a war. Iran wants the U.S out and they want Iraq to be free.

A free Iraq means a Shia Iraq. Iraq is Shia and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Welcome to Hezbollah part 2

When Iraq is free and the U.S no longer controls Iraq, of course Iran is going to arm them and influence them. They are going to become lovers.

However, I tend to have more faith in the people of Iraq and hope that their country will not fall into mullah rule.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Oil study out today says Iran is nearly out of oil and will be completely out by 2015.

12-26-2006 Iran Oil Revenue Quickly Drying Up, Analysis Says

Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues income could virtually disappear by 2015, according to an analysis published yesterday in a journal of the National Academy of Sciences.

Stern's analysis, which appears in this week's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, supports U.S. and European suspicions that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons in violation of international understandings. But, Stern says, there could be merit to Iran's assertion that it needs nuclear power for civilian purposes.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
An aspect of this I wonder about is whether or not an order to attack Iran coming from President Bush might not provoke a crisis within the American military. One of the striking characteristics of the American political experiment is the manner in which the military has always accepted the ultimate authority of the civilian leadership. However, the strain on that acceptance became quite visible in the number of retired Army and Marine Corps generals who appeared in the press this year to complain of Donald Rumsfeld's "7,000-mile screwdriver". It would be a serious mistake to assume that it is only Colin Powell who worries that the United States Army is "about broken".

The Islamic Republic of Iran Regular Forces, while nowhere in the same league as the U.S. military, are also not in the same category as the depleted Iraqi force that the American military defeated in 2003. Would the government of Iran order them to attack U. S. forces in Iraq in response to being bombed at the behest of this White House? With all due respect, no one within this group knows the answer to that question and I would submit that no one within the Pentagon knows the answer, either.

However, I'm very confident that the senior leadership of the Army and the Marine Corps would see such an attack, if carried out on a large scale, as being an enormous and voluntarily chosen burden on our highly-stressed armed forces. They are perfectly aware that the civilian leadership is almost completely composed of people who have never worn the uniform and even the Commander in Chief's status as a military veteran is hardly secure given that his stint during the Viet Nam War was that of a safely-out-of-harm's-way Texas Air National Guard pilot. Add to that the fact that the military victory in Operation Iraqi Freedom was squandered by that same civilian leadership botching the peace and I can imagine little enthusiasm for even a "limited strike" in Iran.

I don't speak or read Farsi, but based on the information available, I think it quite likely that the biggest danger posed by the Iranian population is not to the U.S., but to its own theocratic ruling class.

As I pointed out here before, a very large percentage of that population is under 25. It's also true that the world keeps changing, and that young people are more likely to find change congenial than their elders are. The sexual frustrations imposed on the young in Iran are in themselves a major cause of social tension; when linked with other prohibitions against modernity in all its forms, they can lead to a socially explosive mix.

The mullahs clearly believe that this is manageable. They control most of the organs of state, and of industry. They also have their bully-boys with clubs to beat up students and harrass women on the streets. The deployment of a right-wing populist, Ahmedinejad, to give them cover with the middle-aged and the dispossessed was a clever stroke, if for no other reason than the effect it had of driving the inherent political instability in Iran from the front pages of Western newspapers for several years.

Still, as the recent Iranian elections seem to demonstrate, the Iranian left -- if you can call it that -- has come out of electoral hibernation after a long hiatus, and the real struggle is in the news again.

If we really want to limit Iran's influence on our own futures, we could do worse than put our hands back in our collective pockets and wait a bit. It also wouldn't hurt to solve the problem of our own overweening ambitions. The Israelis' claws must be pried loose from our foreign policy aparatus, for one thing, but above all, we must leave Iraq as soon as we can mobilize the means to do so.

Our diplomatic efforts can then be devoted to supporting a reconciliation between Sunni and Shi'a which have been set at one another's throats by the ill-conceived strategies of our own neocons and the Israelis who mistakenly think that provoking a civil war within Islam will keep the wolf from their door for another generation.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY