War With Iran within the week?

[chucky2]

I seriously am finding it extremely hard to believe that US forces on the ground in Iraq would grab Iranians without some hefty reasons if they knew they were Iranians beforehand.

If they didn't know beforehand, then the Iranians did something to get themselves nabbed.

There is no way to know what is not being released to the public so as to not ruin intelligence...I'll trust US forces before I'll go trusting Iranians....Iranians who are cruising around in waters not their own abducting people not their own, so as to be used for propaganda purposes and deflect attention from the nuke program their pursuing.

I think we've arrived at an impasse: I'm willing to trust the military in Iraq and the Brits, and not trust the Iranians until they actually earn it...you are on the opposite side. That's fine...we can agree to disagree.

Chuck

 

[Lemon law]

To Chucky2--who asks--I seriously am finding it extremely hard to believe that US forces on the ground in Iraq would grab Iranians without some hefty reasons if they knew they were Iranians beforehand.

Get a clue---GWB ordered it---and he is an idiot---as an American---I wish it were not so---but GWB blew it again---what new?

As if we don't have enough problems in Iraq without creating new ones.

Your fantasy is in assuming logic can ever explain the actions of an irrational GWB.

 

[chucky2]

I will go and Google Bush ordering Iranians detained for no reason other than to detain Iranians...

...but I'll ask you for a link just the same, or point me in the right direction...

Again, I think your hatred for Bush is clouding rational judgement here...next you are going to be saying all vehicle deaths in the US are Bush's fault, then world hunger is Bush's fault, then global warming is Bush's fault, then etc.

I don't have much doubt you'd like to come up with a smart retort, but, please, stop being so kneejerk...unless you're intentionally trying to be that way, it just makes you look like a crazy...you're not schizo are you and post as that dcowen guy on your bad days?

Chuck

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss


War is a failure of diplomacy.

There is no diplomacy with that lunatic leader that denies the Holocaust and said repeatedly he wanted to "wipe isreal off the map."

You can't fail if it never begins...

 

[chucky2]

I just Googled "Iranians detained Iraq Bush" without the quotes, here's what I found:

12/29/06: Wash. Post: Iraq Expels 2 Iranians Detained by U.S.

1/11/07 CBS News: Iranians Detained After U.S. Raid In Iraq

1/15/07 MSNBC: Iraqi foreign minister wants 5 Iranians released

1/26/07 CBS News: U.S. Will Confront Iran In Iraq, Bush Says

1/26/07 MSNBC: U.S.: Evidence shows Iran subversion in Iraq

3/29/07 IPS: Fate of Five Detained Iranians Unknown
This last one basically says we don't publically know the exact whereabouts of the Iranians....just like we don't know where the Brits are either (last I heard).

Lemon law: Now, I gave you a bunch of links...please give me one that Bush specifically said to go an grab peace loving Iranians in Iraq and hold them against their will.

Chuck

EDIT: Fixed last link.

 

[alien42]

cnn breaking news:

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he has pardoned the 15 British sailors and marines detained last month and will set them free."

i will say it again, dream on warmongers

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Duddy
Vote away.

I voted yes.


We still have until April 5th at 12:27 AM. So the "No" people haven't won yet

UPDATE: Europe threatens action as Iran airs new 'confession' (Maybe the Yes voters will win?

UPDATE 2: Britain-Iran Crisis Escalates as British Embassy is Attacked

Ummm, no. Sorry to disappoint you. :disgust:

 

[Duddy]

Congrats to the people who voted No! Your collective conscience has saved the world once more!

 

[1EZduzit]

You mean "Thanks" instead of "Congrats", no?

 

[Duddy]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You mean "Thanks" instead of "Congrats", no?

No, I'm looking forward to World War 3rd.

 

[Moonbeam]

Is the time up?

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Is the time up?

No, the Neocons may be very disappointed that the British sailors are released and unharmed, but they still hold out hope that they'll get the chance to watch on TV Iran bombed into the Stone Age. I'm sure you of all people could provide an explanation for their blood lust, I suppose it's sort of like the popularity of fight and attack videos on Youtube only on a much bigger scale. Maybe the idea of innocent children suffering and dying is titillating?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Is the time up?

Hopefully so!

Of course, when the Libs get their way and we back off Iran pursuing nukes because it's not nice, and then some wacko group (which the way things go in Iran, could be the government itself...or probably will be) down the road gest a hold of one and cooks it off in New York, or better yet, San Francisico, those same Libs will be crying, How could htis happen!? How could this happen!?

But hey, because I'd rather be safe and not liked by people who take that less seriously, I'm a warmonger...oh well, back to YouTube fight vids!

Chuck

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Duddy

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You mean "Thanks" instead of "Congrats", no?

No, I'm looking forward to World War 3rd.

"I see" said the blind man to the deaf begger.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Is the time up?

Hopefully so!

Of course, when the Libs get their way and we back off Iran pursuing nukes because it's not nice, and then some wacko group (which the way things go in Iran, could be the government itself...or probably will be) down the road gest a hold of one and cooks it off in New York, or better yet, San Francisico, those same Libs will be crying, How could htis happen!? How could this happen!?

But hey, because I'd rather be safe and not liked by people who take that less seriously, I'm a warmonger...oh well, back to YouTube fight vids!

Chuck

Your problem is that you tell yourself a story that is completely out to lunch. You know nothing about your unconscious or what you feel, or that your fears out there of tomorrow already happened to you long ago. You know nothing of the fact that you would rather destroy the world than see how bad you were made to feel. You can't see what a tremendous menace you are to yourself and others. You are ignorant and you like it that way. You are the very wacko that you fear, a mad man with a love for the gun. You are the monster in your dreams. You need to go to war, all right, but with your self.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Your problem is that you tell yourself a story that is completely out to lunch. You know nothing about your unconscious or what you feel, or that your fears out there of tomorrow already happened to you long ago. You know nothing of the fact that you would rather destroy the world than see how bad you were made to feel. You can't see what a tremendous menace you are to yourself and others. You are ignorant and you like it that way. You are the very wacko that you fear, a mad man with a love for the gun. You are the monster in your dreams. You need to go to war, all right, but with your self.

Whatever you were on when you wrote that, save it for your next party, it'll be a hit, guarantee it! :thumbsup:

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Is the time up?

Hopefully so!

Of course, when the Libs get their way and we back off Iran pursuing nukes because it's not nice, and then some wacko group (which the way things go in Iran, could be the government itself...or probably will be) down the road gest a hold of one and cooks it off in New York, or better yet, San Francisico, those same Libs will be crying, How could htis happen!? How could this happen!?

But hey, because I'd rather be safe and not liked by people who take that less seriously, I'm a warmonger...oh well, back to YouTube fight vids!

Chuck

so you are attacking the 'libs' for doing nothing yet your 'cons' dont seem to be very successful in preventing iran from achieving their nuclear goals. congrats, maybe you should blame the right people next time.

*if you dont understand that, then think about this. the 'libs' kept saddam in check and prevented him from obtaining WMDs without violence (and yes, i will give props to the first GW)

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: alien42

so you are attacking the 'libs' for doing nothing yet your 'cons' dont seem to be very successful in preventing iran from achieving their nuclear goals. congrats, maybe you should blame the right people next time.

*if you dont understand that, then think about this. the 'libs' kept saddam in check and prevented him from obtaining WMDs without violence (and yes, i will give props to the first GW)

What you say is absolutely impossible alien42, as the Libs have said Iran's government is not pursuing a nuke, they merely want it for energy production...it's not like they have an abundant supply of natural resources or anything, I mean, what else will they use for power other than nuclear energy?

As for keeping Saddam in check, it took Gulf War I for the world to not only wake up that radical regimes have to eventually be dealt with, but also to set the stage for the "check" to work. And I highly doubt it would have kept him in "check" for any acceptable period of time. Saddam with a nuke in 1990 is no different than a Saddam with a nuke in 2020, it just is 30 years sooner. One does not bury centrifuges (that were not found, they were turned in) in a scientists front yard under rose bushes or whatever they were because you're in "check", one does that when their biding their time.

Chuck

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: alien42

so you are attacking the 'libs' for doing nothing yet your 'cons' dont seem to be very successful in preventing iran from achieving their nuclear goals. congrats, maybe you should blame the right people next time.

*if you dont understand that, then think about this. the 'libs' kept saddam in check and prevented him from obtaining WMDs without violence (and yes, i will give props to the first GW)

What you say is absolutely impossible alien42, as the Libs have said Iran's government is not pursuing a nuke, they merely want it for energy production...it's not like they have an abundant supply of natural resources or anything, I mean, what else will they use for power other than nuclear energy?

<snip>

Chuck

I'm a Lib and I never said that. What Lib said this?

 

[chucky2]

Just pick any thread were Iran comes up here in P&N and read through it...

...inevitably someone points out we're the ones provoking Iran, that we should back off...

...then someone points out We can't back off, their pursuing nukes and that's bad...

...then som Lib or Lib-type will go, Post a link where Iran says their pursuing nukes, Post it I say!!!!! Or, Iran never attacked anyone (implying that they are a trustable country). Or, The US has done 100 Billion times worse than Iran (implying that because 20-30 years ago, we had a different agenda over there, that means it's cool in the real world now that Iran go nuke). Or, Well, you get the picture.

Chuck

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Here we go again, pundits discussing dodgy propaganda as if it were sacred fact.

Iran's nuclear ambition is not the reason the US+ needs to destroy the place, any more than WMDs or al Qaeda made them have to destroy Iraq.

Iran is a land of over 60 million people . They have been there as one society for a long time.

Who, exactly, would fight Iran on behalf of the West?

Who would pay for the war, and how?

Would existing armies suffice or would a draft be needed?

Whare would the Western army be based?

What would be the immediate legal basis for the war? Would it be "self defense" or would it be "enforcment of UN resolutions"?

Would the war be formally declared by Western legislatures or would the heads of Government just do it?

What would be military objective? Full surrender and acceptance of occupation, or "bombing them into submission?

What is the probability of military failure?

What would be the impact of the war on world oil supplies?

What would be the impact of military failure on the region, or, what is the likelihood that the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would survive if the war did not result in a rapid and decisive victory for the West?

There is no military choice vs. acceptance of nuclear Iran to choose from. The former will guarantee the latter. It is simple, the only way attacking Iran would stop its future production of nuclear weapons would be if the attack was Iraq style boots on the ground for decades; and that isn't gonna happen.

Iran wants nuclear energy for electricity plus the capability of making weapons if it is ever attacked again, as it was in 1980. I think they realize that said capability will have all the defensive benefits of full weaponization without the negative disruptive local effects on Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, etc.

As El baradai has said, you can't bomb knowledge.

So why not take the deal the Iranians offered years ago:

1) Agreement with Iran's right to low-level enrichment
2) The most intrusive inspections program on record
3) Immediate conversion of all enriched uranium to fuel rods
4) Western investment and part-ownership of enrichment facilities

The above was offered to the Brit/French/German negotiators and was turned down ... why?

Was the US not interested?

Was it because the US cannot tolerate a country rich in oil and gas being in a position to deter it from aggression?.

Bushco seem to have no real objection to Pakistan having nukes. But then Pakistan doesn't have oil. No one ever talks about the threat of Islamic Pakistan having nuclear weapons and Pakistan has not even signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They are teetering on military dictatorship & Islamic extremism.

Bush will need to acquire diplomatic sophistication - even as leader of a "unipolar power"-in dealing with the Third World.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: alien42

so you are attacking the 'libs' for doing nothing yet your 'cons' dont seem to be very successful in preventing iran from achieving their nuclear goals. congrats, maybe you should blame the right people next time.

*if you dont understand that, then think about this. the 'libs' kept saddam in check and prevented him from obtaining WMDs without violence (and yes, i will give props to the first GW)

What you say is absolutely impossible alien42, as the Libs have said Iran's government is not pursuing a nuke, they merely want it for energy production...it's not like they have an abundant supply of natural resources or anything, I mean, what else will they use for power other than nuclear energy?

As for keeping Saddam in check, it took Gulf War I for the world to not only wake up that radical regimes have to eventually be dealt with, but also to set the stage for the "check" to work. And I highly doubt it would have kept him in "check" for any acceptable period of time. Saddam with a nuke in 1990 is no different than a Saddam with a nuke in 2020, it just is 30 years sooner. One does not bury centrifuges (that were not found, they were turned in) in a scientists front yard under rose bushes or whatever they were because you're in "check", one does that when their biding their time.

Chuck

please show us some news articles with all the 'libs' saying that iran has no desire to build a nuclear weapon.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: alien42

please show us some news articles with all the 'libs' saying that iran has no desire to build a nuclear weapon.

Given how wacked out some of the voted in Libs we have are (as are some of their counterparts on the right), I don't doubt I could dig up something...

...but when I said Libs or Lib-types, I didn't mean our elected officials, I meant the ones here on P&N.

Thankfully, at least for now, I haven't heard any of our elected officials actually say their not worried about Iran going nuke...not that I don't think it'll happen, but so far, no ones been suckered in yet.

Chuck

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Again, dig it out. So far all I'm seeing is weaving, shucking, jiving and dodging. Or were you just mindlessly slamming the Librulz like always. Trust me, peppering threads with pejorative labels does not make you seem authoritative or knowledgeable. Quite the contrary. Whacked out indeed.

 

[chucky2]

Why would I go dig it out IMC?

I already just said that I was referring to the Lib and Lib-types here on P&N, not our elected officials. This would mean I don't need to go digging out where an elected Lib said let Iran have nukes, because I just said I didn't assert that. I cannot make it any more simple.

Do I doubt elected Libs in the future will advocate letting Iran continue their nuke program? Personally, No. But that's in the future, so it hasn't happened yet, so I wan't go there (for now).

And as far as all the "weaving, shucking, jiving and dodging", that's all I see from the Bush/Blair/West haters on here, where their "just mindlessly slamming the 'Neocons' like always".

Chuck