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

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Aimster
funding government officials is different than arming insurgents.
not in Iraq.
There is no evidence Iran is doing anything with the insurgency.
Two questions:
1) Is it your contention that Iran has no involvement in the insurgency, or that there is simply no evidence of their involvement?

Please clarify.

2) Second, if you were presented with undeniable proof of Iran's direct involvement in the insurgency, including the provision of weapons and training, would you condemn Iran for it? Or would you somehow justify or excuse their involvement?
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Aimster
funding government officials is different than arming insurgents.
not in Iraq.
There is no evidence Iran is doing anything with the insurgency.
Oh come on. It is absolutely in Iran's interest to see America's nose bloodied. They want to increase their sphere of influence. Unfortunately, Bush has helped them along more than anything in that goal. Sometimes I wonder if he isn't working with our enemies. Seriously. Iran could not have planned the current scenario better, and yet it is Bush who has carried it out.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
I dont think Iran has a single thing to do with the insurgency as far as weapons and money goes.
It would show if Iran was giving the insurgents weapons, like it showed when Israel fought Hezbollah.

Iran wanted Saddam out of power. If they wanted the Iraqis to fight they would have armed Iraq all over the place before the invasion. Iran wants a free Iraq because a free Iraq is basically an Islamic Iraq that is Shia. There are no other Shia states other than Iran. If Iraq finally gets their crap figured out they will be allied with Iran.

If Iraq was run by an Ayatollah and the U.S invaded, then of course Iran would have given Iraq all the weapons they had. Most of the insurgents that are attacking the U.S forces are Sunni and Arab. Iran has no connection with Sunni groups inside Iraq nor do they have any friendly relations with anyone inside Saudi Arabia. Iran is run by Ayatollahs, which are part of the Shia sect.

Question 2:
why would I praise Iran? Look at their Santa Claus/Wizard from Lord of The Rings looking leaders. Given the opportunity I would pull the trigger without thinking twice.

but make no mistake, Iran will never control Iraq like they control Hezbollah. Iraq's religious leaders and Iran's religious leaders differ in a lot of things and the people of Iraq are going to be loyal to Iraqi Ayatollahs. Iran brainwashes people into loving Ayatollah Khomeini and the current leader Khameini. Good luck trying that crap inside Iraq.
Even that Al-Sadr guy inside Iraq is A) hated by many Shias inside Iraq because he supports Khormeini B) Is hated by many Iranian Ayatollahs because of his views.
So there is no unity between the two groups.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Aimster
I dont think Iran has a single thing to do with the insurgency as far as weapons and money goes.
ok, I believe that you are very wrong with regards to the level of involvement Iran currently has in the insurgency. I believe they are very actively arming and funding Iraqi Shi'ites. I also believe that they benefit more from an Iraq in chaos than even a Shia-run Iraq; so the current situation is just to their liking.

The longer that Iran can keep the U.S. tied up in Iraq, the longer they have to work on their defenses and nuclear capabilities. They also benefit greatly from a continued quagmire in Iraq because it weakens the American resolve to confront Iran down the road.

I also believe that the Sunni's in Iraq will never allow Iraq to become a formal ally of Iran. Since the Iranians know this, I do not think they would support any form of true democracy in Iraq. You even recognize that the Iranians can never control Iraq; you simply left out the word "democratic." Indeed, if Iraq became a Shi'ite theocracy, Iran could easily control the; therefore Iran will continue to cause chaos in Iraq in the hopes that it one day results in a Shi'ite Theocracy.

An extended civil war ending in a Shi'ite theocracy is also likely if the U.S. pulls out too soon.

swell, eh?
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,494
263
126
I never in a million years thought we'd invade Iran
Haven't been around long , eh?

I thought we were going to invade when Carter was in office.
 

WiseOldDude

Senior member
Feb 13, 2005
702
0
0
The level of stupidity of Puppet Bush and the neocon string pullers is really unlimited and unbelievable.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
162
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Here. Let me write one of Dubya's next speeches:
"We want the American public to understand that our intelligence has revealed that Iran is behind the insurgency in Iraq. Furthermore, Iran is seeking to develop nukular ( :p ) capabilities. We are asking the UN to allow us to strike now before it is too late. Furthermore, our secret intelligence has revealed that Iran snuck all the WMP's across the border just before we invaded Iraq.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: ntdz
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.
Why? Why is the Saudi regime so precious?
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
The US is moving two carries + additional navy forces into the Persian Gulf as we speak to put pressure on Iran, perhaps in preparation of an attack. One or them (memory fails me sorry think it was USS Enterprise) is already there.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Why is it that the USA can openly or in secret aid various groups---like the majanadeen in Afhgangistan or the Contra rebels in South America---or engage in a war in Iraq---and no one on this forum raises peep about the morality of it.---while the USA supports dictators and often crushes democratic movements.

But if Iran is even suspected of rooting for the Shia in Iraq---a country right next door Iran needs better futiure relations with---everyone is up in arms and wants to nuke em.---Yes Virginia---Iran has a foreign policy---that is what nations do--they try to act in their own best interests.

But if Iran wanted to---they could export in mass some rather deadly ordinance into Iraq--and smuggle it in with almost total inpunity---and we would see it almost immediately as US troop death tolls would skyrocket.

All in all----I think Iran is acting far more responsibly than the US.---but then again they almost have to---if the mid-east blows up---they are right in the middle of it---and we in the US are a half a world away.-------------but in the grand scheme of things---if the mid-east goes---there goes the economies of most nations in the world---including the USA's.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

And I say onto thee---GWB---let they who are without sin cast that first stone.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Why is it that the USA can openly or in secret aid various groups---like the majanadeen in Afhgangistan or the Contra rebels in South America---or engage in a war in Iraq---and no one on this forum raises peep about the morality of it.---while the USA supports dictators and often crushes democratic movements.

But if Iran is even suspected of rooting for the Shia in Iraq---a country right next door Iran needs better futiure relations with---everyone is up in arms and wants to nuke em.---Yes Virginia---Iran has a foreign policy---that is what nations do--they try to act in their own best interests.

But if Iran wanted to---they could export in mass some rather deadly ordinance into Iraq--and smuggle it in with almost total inpunity---and we would see it almost immediately as US troop death tolls would skyrocket.

All in all----I think Iran is acting far more responsibly than the US.---but then again they almost have to---if the mid-east blows up---they are right in the middle of it---and we in the US are a half a world away.-------------but in the grand scheme of things---if the mid-east goes---there goes the economies of most nations in the world---including the USA's.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

And I say onto thee---GWB---let they who are without sin cast that first stone.
Of course Iran has the "right" to interfere and look out for their own best interests. The problem arises when their goals and actions are in direct conflict with the goals of the U.S.

That's called being "an enemy." In this case, Iran is an evil Shi'ite theocracy. That makes them a true threat to real democracy in Iraq; and therefore they are our enemy.

So, you just have to remember whose side you're on; and if you're a U.S. citizen, that "side" had better be the US of A. period.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Why is it that the USA can openly or in secret aid various groups---like the majanadeen in Afhgangistan or the Contra rebels in South America---or engage in a war in Iraq---and no one on this forum raises peep about the morality of it.---while the USA supports dictators and often crushes democratic movements.

But if Iran is even suspected of rooting for the Shia in Iraq---a country right next door Iran needs better futiure relations with---everyone is up in arms and wants to nuke em.---Yes Virginia---Iran has a foreign policy---that is what nations do--they try to act in their own best interests.

But if Iran wanted to---they could export in mass some rather deadly ordinance into Iraq--and smuggle it in with almost total inpunity---and we would see it almost immediately as US troop death tolls would skyrocket.

All in all----I think Iran is acting far more responsibly than the US.---but then again they almost have to---if the mid-east blows up---they are right in the middle of it---and we in the US are a half a world away.-------------but in the grand scheme of things---if the mid-east goes---there goes the economies of most nations in the world---including the USA's.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

And I say onto thee---GWB---let they who are without sin cast that first stone.
Of course Iran has the "right" to interfere and look out for their own best interests. The problem arises when their goals and actions are in direct conflict with the goals of the U.S.

That's called being "an enemy." In this case, Iran is an evil Shi'ite theocracy. That makes them a true threat to real democracy in Iraq; and therefore they are our enemy.

So, you just have to remember whose side you're on; and if you're a U.S. citizen, that "side" had better be the US of A. period.

Agreed. Everybody must bow down to the dictates from Washington. That is the only acceptable definition of freedom.

"We have become a monster in the eyes of the whole world - a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us... No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we?ll kill you." - Hunter S. Thompson
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
To palehorse74,

Who wrote---So, you just have to remember whose side you're on; and if you're a U.S. citizen, that "side" had better be the US of A. period.

I am sure many German citizens who followed Hitler will be proud of your defense of my country right or wrong.----and sorry---but GWB is not my idea of a fearless leader.
And if my word can even reduce by an iota the knee jerk tendency by some idiots to ensnare this nation into more stupid unwinable wars---I can rest easy with my patriotism.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Lemon, it is true that we aided the anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan, but our soldiers were not there fighting and killing Russians, as it now appears Iranians are doing.

This is a problem for Iran. They can do whatever they want, but the must deal with the consequences.

We could have sent the 10th mountain in Afghanistan, and started WW 3, we knew better.
Iran seems to think it can do whatever it wants without having to face up for its actions, it has gotten away with this for 20+ years, maybe it is time we actually deal with them rather than avoid them.

The latest news is that these captured guys were involved in fights that resulted in the death of Americans. This is essentially an act of war against us. We don't have to invade Iran to teach them a lesson or two. Plus Iran is one of the leading causes of problems in Iraq, so we can kill two birds with one stone.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Lemon, it is true that we aided the anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan, but our soldiers were not there fighting and killing Russians, as it now appears Iranians are doing.

This is a problem for Iran. They can do whatever they want, but the must deal with the consequences.

We could have sent the 10th mountain in Afghanistan, and started WW 3, we knew better.
Iran seems to think it can do whatever it wants without having to face up for its actions, it has gotten away with this for 20+ years, maybe it is time we actually deal with them rather than avoid them.

The latest news is that these captured guys were involved in fights that resulted in the death of Americans. This is essentially an act of war against us. We don't have to invade Iran to teach them a lesson or two. Plus Iran is one of the leading causes of problems in Iraq, so we can kill two birds with one stone.
If the US has a right to be in Iraq why not Iranians. Foreign troops is just foreign troops right? I guess only the right kind of foreign invaders are allowed.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Lemon, it is true that we aided the anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan, but our soldiers were not there fighting and killing Russians, as it now appears Iranians are doing.

This is a problem for Iran. They can do whatever they want, but the must deal with the consequences.

We could have sent the 10th mountain in Afghanistan, and started WW 3, we knew better.
Iran seems to think it can do whatever it wants without having to face up for its actions, it has gotten away with this for 20+ years, maybe it is time we actually deal with them rather than avoid them.

The latest news is that these captured guys were involved in fights that resulted in the death of Americans. This is essentially an act of war against us. We don't have to invade Iran to teach them a lesson or two. Plus Iran is one of the leading causes of problems in Iraq, so we can kill two birds with one stone.
If the US has a right to be in Iraq why not Iranians. Foreign troops is just foreign troops right? I guess only the right kind of foreign invaders are allowed.
as I said, they all have the "right" to be there, but when they are directly involved in attacks on Americans, doesn't that make them our "enemy"?

again, you have to remember whose side you're on; and I truly believe that some of you don't.

This has nothing to do with speaking out against the foreign policies of our President and everything to do with condemning those who are directly involved in killing our soldiers. You can do the first as long as you still do the second as well.

Giving Iran a free pass to kill our troops, because you'd rather give them a hug, is treasonous.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
Originally posted by: Aimster

Hezbollah & Hamas are not a U.S problem or a worldwide problem. You would have signed off on sending U.S troops to die for another country with a very capable military?
It's part of the same battle--Western Civilization, reason, and individual rights versus religious mysticism and dictatorship. So, yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with American troops actually doing something that would benefit Americans. We should have given Isreal the green light to clean up the Middle East a long time ago.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Now there is a brilliant idea WhipperSnapper---turn the military dominance and governance of the entire mid-east with hundreds of millions of people--to a country like Israel with some 20 million population and hated by those hundreds of millions to boot.---hate to tell you but the times are a changing---and Israel was hard pressed to move very far into Lebanon. But managed to kill thousand of innocent civilians and do billions of dollars of property damage.

WhipperSnapper--do you by any chance have a job as a GWB Presidential advisor?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
[Israel] managed to kill thousand of innocent civilians and do billions of dollars of property damage.
if the enemy uses those civilians as human shields, then they are whom I blame for the death of said civilians. It's not Israel's fault that Hezbollah fights like a bunch of filthy cowards who have absolutely no concern for the people they hide behind.

If some group of thugs parked a rocket truck next to my bedroom, I don't think I'd blame the anyone for blowing it up. I'd blame myself for hanging around to die, or more likely, I'd blame the jerks who decided to hide their big rocket-launcher 2 feet outside my bedroom wall!

Those of you who honestly blame Israel for those deaths are a few cards short of a full deck... in other words, you're loco.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
To Palehorse74,

Who wrote----I'd blame the jerks who decided to hide their big rocket-launcher 2 feet outside my bedroom wall!

Those of you who honestly blame Israel for those deaths are a few cards short of a full deck... in other words, you're loco.

Ok Palehorse74---so you wake up one morning and discover a bunch of armed thugs outside your bedroom window--and setting up a rocket laucher---what do you do?---tell them to get off your propety?---as they laugh and continue setting up-- Get your gun and start shooting em---only to get shot yourself?----the short and rational answer is to get the hell out and run away-----but where--everywhere you go in town other armed thugs are doing the same----so you get in your car---if you have one---and get bombed by an Israeli plane because they are bombing everything that moves on roads. Now I hope you have a little better understanding of the last Israeli incursion into Lebanon---rather than playing the loco card.

But in another area your little example really stuck your foot deep in your mouth---because suppose
you managed to run away without being killed---and after the conflict died down---made your way back to your home---only to be told---you ran away---your property is now ours. Which explains this whole right to return thing the Palistinians and arabs are still so angry about.

Anyone who things Israel is 100% right is totally loco-----the more rational blame both sides---and decry the escalating conflict---when a peaceful political solution is needed.

Even if one is very pro-Israeli in this conflict---anyone with brain one sees that Israeli military hegmony can't last forever---and relying on that military hegmony and angering all neighbors is very stupid foreign policy.---which seems the current corner Israel is painting itself into.
 

Aimster

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

Hezbollah & Hamas are not a U.S problem or a worldwide problem. You would have signed off on sending U.S troops to die for another country with a very capable military?
It's part of the same battle--Western Civilization, reason, and individual rights versus religious mysticism and dictatorship. So, yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with American troops actually doing something that would benefit Americans. We should have given Isreal the green light to clean up the Middle East a long time ago.
uhm Hezbollah and Hamas have nothing to do with western values.

they are against Israel because of land issues.
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Their objective is slaughtering the Jews -- definitely a land issue.

Hezbolla didn't have a land issue since 2000, but now their cause is assisting their "brothers". How chivalrous of them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY