War With Iran within the week?

[dennilfloss]

"On January 20, 1981, the day Ronald Reagan became President, the hostages were freed following the Algiers Accords."

Nice coincidence. It's not like they could have been freed before the election, eh?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
"On January 20, 1981, the day Ronald Reagan became President, the hostages were freed following the Algiers Accords."

It's not like they could have been freed before the election, eh?

Where is your proof that Reagan delayed the releasing of the hostages? Didn't you pull some BS crap over in off topic a few years ago?

 

[Lemon law]

I oddly agree with non-Prof John when he states GWB could order an Iranian bombing to start in the next five minutes without even consulting congress. after all, our naval assets are already in place. But when the price of a gallon of gas reaches about $60.00 or better a gallon within a few hours---and still rising---GWB&co are all too likely to be impeached and convicted within a day or two.

We all have the power to leap off tall buildings with a single bound----the measure of wisdom is often in what we don't do.---which trumps stupid every time.---and come to think of it---its an apt discription of GWB&co.----stuck on stupid.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
"On January 20, 1981, the day Ronald Reagan became President, the hostages were freed following the Algiers Accords."

Nice coincidence. It's not like they could have been freed before the election, eh?

they could have been freed anytime after the election.

Iran was attempting to see what they could extract from Carter for themselves up to the last possible minute.
Reagan had already drawn the line in the sand. Iran had decided that they were not going to cross that line come 21 Jan.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm wondering if those who voted wrong when the week is over will realize they should never believe in themselves again? I doubt it. We couldn't possibly have so many people stuffed full of their own opinions who haven't already been wrong a million times. Shouldn't that tell us that what is important to people is not the accuracy of their thinking but what thinking you know what is going on. People, it seems to me have no shame at all. It doesn't matter about what their opinion is so long as they feel certain.

 

[manowar821]

I hope they don't execute them... However, bombing and killing thousands of innocent Iranians is NOT a good, or acceptable answer.

There WILL be hell to pay if the U.S. or the U.K. decide to go to war with Iran, and I, along with many of my parters will be some of the people raising said hell.

These dinosaurs of governments need to learn from their mistakes, and those mistakes include being bomb-happy, overbearing nationalist monsters. There is a reason why a lot of the world is pissed off at the U.S. and the U.K., and it's a good reason, too.

Stop the killing. Back off. You are not the world police.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Where is the Contra when you need them? Americans are so badass when it comes to dealing with Iranian kidnappings, they did so well to rescue their own hostages on April 25th 1980. :roll:

They embassy, American territory, was invaded at 10:30 a.m. on Nov. 4, 1979 (an act of war) and remains so 27 years later. Reagan's campaign people covertly hampered efforts by the Carter administrations to make sure the hostages would be freed only after the election so that Reagan could look like a hero and Carter like a weakling.

More machinations than guns ablazing, even if the young warmongers in ATOT call the Brits pussies. At least the Brits committed to a real war with Argentina for the Falklands in the 80s. During that time, the US fought the great enemy called Grenada. The UK knows when the time is for democracy and when the time is for war.

Some people could do well to read the day-by-day diplomacy that went on in 1938-1941 and see that things are often very complicated not just by unfolding events but also by the very personalities and internal power struggles involved.

War is a failure of diplomacy.

carter was a weakling and he is still cowtowing to this day.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Where is the Contra when you need them? Americans are so badass when it comes to dealing with Iranian kidnappings, they did so well to rescue their own hostages on April 25th 1980. :roll:

They embassy, American territory, was invaded at 10:30 a.m. on Nov. 4, 1979 (an act of war) and remains so 27 years later. Reagan's campaign people covertly hampered efforts by the Carter administrations to make sure the hostages would be freed only after the election so that Reagan could look like a hero and Carter like a weakling.

More machinations than guns ablazing, even if the young warmongers in ATOT call the Brits pussies. At least the Brits committed to a real war with Argentina for the Falklands in the 80s. During that time, the US fought the great enemy called Grenada. The UK knows when the time is for democracy and when the time is for war.

Some people could do well to read the day-by-day diplomacy that went on in 1938-1941 and see that things are often very complicated not just by unfolding events but also by the very personalities and internal power struggles involved.

War is a failure of diplomacy.

carter was a weakling and he is still cowtowing to this day.

Actually Carter is so far morally advance over where you are that you have not even the faintest idea as to where he's at. All you can see in Carter is yourself.

 

[DarkThinker]

No way in hell, it would mean WWIII and I think the US has more to lose than Iran IMHO.

DarkThinker

 

[piasabird]

I would tell Iran if they cut off the hands of the people who Stole their vessel and kidnapped their sailors, that we would call it even. Otherwise we destroy their port and their entire navy.

However, this will not happen. Britian is weak. However, Britian does have its own oil and does not need to worry about an oil supply.

 

[nageov3t]

I think the whole Iran thing is really a lot of smoke a mirrors... they're not some backwards country with an uneducated populous that's enthralled by their leader like north korea or something.

likewise, I can't imagine Bush is that retarded to engage a third conflict while we're already in the middle of losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I didn't vote in the poll because a "I hope not" choice was not listed.

And just I say this to anyone who thinks a war with Iran will be a picnic. While massive infrastructure damage can be inflicted on Iran in a short time, it will wound Iran but not kill Iran. Thereafter and for years to come, no surface shipping will move in the Persian gulf. Within minutes after the first bomb falls, speculators will have pushed the price of oil through the roof. Probably resulting in a world wide depression as all oil based economies grind to a halt.

If you like the quagmire that Iraq has become---you will probably love a war with Iran.

What is it with you guys and your constant belief that we are going to enter some kind of land war with Iran?
We don't need to invade and take over the country to get our message across.
In Iraq the goal was to remove Saddam and replace the government.
In Iran the goal would be to remove their nuke program and knock them down a few pegs and hopefully cut back on their outlandish behavior.
Totally different objectives that have totally different military needs.

Look at Bosnia, perfect example. Bombed the hell out of them for 30 days and we got what we wanted, same thing would most likely happen in Iran.
If Iran responds to our bombing by trying to invade Iraq and draw into a ground war our air power will demolish their army, it will be the highway of death all over again.

It wasn't Bosnia. It was Serbia...

And I hope you understand the enormous difference in the political situation between that operation and this one. From every point of view.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Duddy
Vote away.

I voted yes.

Calling for genocide and unchecked nuclear technology, and all we can do is wave our proverbial finger at them. An act of war with capturing soldiers is likely to make matters worse, but after how pathetic we?ve acted previously I do not expect a sudden attack on Iran.

Congress must declare war first, and through their hatred of Bush they?d sooner help Iran build the nukes than lift a finger to stop them.

The obvious answer is no. If it is yes, then Dems would bring forth civil unrest here in America to stop us.

When is the last time congress declared war? How many conflicts have we had since then?
Bush could launch a limited bombing raid without telling congress before hand and get away with it.
FYI: Clinton did it many times himself, so don't expect congress to do much more than whine and moan.

I expect they would impeach Bush and burn this nation before seeing us burn Iran. Their allegiances are not with us winning this war.

 

[Summitdrinker]

no war within a week. but if this kinda BS keeps up it might happen.......Iran will put up a better fight for a few days than Iraq. then fold....................

Bush jr is really a retard..he should have knocked off Iran not iraq if he wanted to be the big war hero pres.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Summitdrinker
no war within a week. but if this kinda BS keeps up it might happen.......Iran will put up a better fight for few days than Iraq. then fold....................

Bush jr is really a retard..he should have knocked off Iran not iraq if wanted to be the big war hero pres.

U.S cannot invade Iran and win.
U.S will simply lose or be stuck in the desert the entire time.

Invasion is out of the question.

 

[Summitdrinker]

why totally invade? just bomb the heck out of them at first then take over a few key areas with troops

we can't invade????????????, yes we can our troops are one country away now, no reason they must all stay in Iraq, we can use Iraq has a base now were sitting better than you think in some ways. true it will strane our troops but it can be done.

and Iran can not cut off the oil shipping in the sea for more than a few days

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Summitdrinker
why totally invade? just bomb the heck out of them at first then take over a few key areas with troops

we can't invade????????????, yes we can our troops are one country away now, no reason they must all stay in Iraq, we can use Iraq has a base now were sitting better than you think in some ways. true it will strane our troops but it can be done.

and Iran can not cut off the oil shipping in the sea for more than a few days

You cannot bomb Iran without Iran bombing U.S positions.

Iran can launch thousands of rockets and missiles into U.S bases inside Iraq and Afghanistan and the U.S cannot do anything to stop it. Iran also controls the oil in the Persian Gulf. There is just no possible way for the U.S to stop a missile attack unless they nuke hundreds of miles of coastline.

You must be living in la la land if you ever think U.S troops will reach Tehran. Iran has a population of 70 million with 99.9% of the people ready to die for Iran.
Iraq nobody fought and everyone cheered the invasion. You are not going to see a single soul inside Iran cheering a U.S invasion. You will see people rushing to arms.

If it was so easy the U.S would have attacked Iran yesterday.

 

[Summitdrinker]

ok, I already said that Iran could put up a good fight for a few days, I never said we should take tehran with troops, why bother. well I guess america waited too long if you say there so powerful.

you really think all there missles are that accurate???????????

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Summitdrinker
no war within a week. but if this kinda BS keeps up it might happen.......Iran will put up a better fight for few days than Iraq. then fold....................

Bush jr is really a retard..he should have knocked off Iran not iraq if wanted to be the big war hero pres.

U.S cannot invade Iran and win.
U.S will simply lose or be stuck in the desert the entire time.

Invasion is out of the question.

Bagdad Bob, is that you?

Oh, and I agree there are MANY options other than invasion. Then if we did invade, it could only be to do damage and get out. Occupation, after our failure in Iraq, should be entirely out of the question.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Summitdrinker
ok, I already said that Iran could put up a good fight for a few days, I never said we should take tehran with troops, why bother. well I guess america waited too long if you say there so powerful.

you really think all there missles are that accurate???????????

They struck an MEK (anti Iran group) base inside Iraq in the 1990s with their missiles. Those missiles were accurate. I believe they used 300 or so in that attack.

Iran has come a long way since then. Their military has expanded and they have a lot more toys in their inventory.

 

[Summitdrinker]

best to take them on now before it's too late...

see bush jr is brainless, he takes out Iraq a near weakling and lets Iran get more powerful, but then again bush jr is the big war pres yet to this day for his bush washed followers

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Summitdrinker
no war within a week. but if this kinda BS keeps up it might happen.......Iran will put up a better fight for few days than Iraq. then fold....................

Bush jr is really a retard..he should have knocked off Iran not iraq if wanted to be the big war hero pres.

U.S cannot invade Iran and win.
U.S will simply lose or be stuck in the desert the entire time.

Invasion is out of the question.

Bagdad Bob, is that you?

Oh, and I agree there are MANY options other than invasion. Then if we did invade, it could only be to do damage and get out. Occupation, after our failure in Iraq, should be entirely out of the question.

There is no way you can attack Iran without having to invade.

An attack on Iran is not going to be responded in silence by Iran. They will hit back.
When they hit back U.S will hit back again. Iran will then hit back again.

It will keep on going until the U.S leaves the area or Iran has no way of hitting back.
The only chance of Iran not being able to hit back is if the U.S controls Iran.

None of this would have even been a problem had A) Bush not called Iran part of an Axis of evil and B) U.S invading Iraq.

 

[Summitdrinker]

your part right it is part bush jr's fault for being so dumb, but good old ronny and company can take plenty of the blame too for not standing up to them in the first place

but hey we took out saddam, iran's biggest enemy, and paved the way for iraq to partially unite with iran

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Summitdrinker
why totally invade? just bomb the heck out of them at first then take over a few key areas with troops

we can't invade????????????, yes we can our troops are one country away now, no reason they must all stay in Iraq, we can use Iraq has a base now were sitting better than you think in some ways. true it will strane our troops but it can be done.

and Iran can not cut off the oil shipping in the sea for more than a few days

You cannot bomb Iran without Iran bombing U.S positions.

Iran can launch thousands of rockets and missiles into U.S bases inside Iraq and Afghanistan and the U.S cannot do anything to stop it. Iran also controls the oil in the Persian Gulf. There is just no possible way for the U.S to stop a missile attack unless they nuke hundreds of miles of coastline.

You must be living in la la land if you ever think U.S troops will reach Tehran. Iran has a population of 70 million with 99.9% of the people ready to die for Iran.
Iraq nobody fought and everyone cheered the invasion. You are not going to see a single soul inside Iran cheering a U.S invasion. You will see people rushing to arms.

If it was so easy the U.S would have attacked Iran yesterday.

Well if 99.9% are willing to pick up arms against us then they are enemy combatants and bombing all of them is justifiable, correct?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: manowar821
I hope they don't execute them... However, bombing and killing thousands of innocent Iranians is NOT a good, or acceptable answer.

There WILL be hell to pay if the U.S. or the U.K. decide to go to war with Iran, and I, along with many of my parters will be some of the people raising said hell.

These dinosaurs of governments need to learn from their mistakes, and those mistakes include being bomb-happy, overbearing nationalist monsters. There is a reason why a lot of the world is pissed off at the U.S. and the U.K., and it's a good reason, too.

Stop the killing. Back off. You are not the world police.

Balalala Jihad, Durka Durka.
They're pissed off because American and the UK have something they don't. Money and power. You claim the killing of innocents is wrong however, without the looming threat of retaliation by American forces, many Middle Eastern countries would jump at the chance to take back Israel, kill all the jews, and anyone else that didn't fall in their clan or tribal lines.