Iran: The Next Iraq

[Ravens-Grin]

Brought to you by the same guy that brought you the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib.

I personally hope this isn't true, but if it is true it most likely won't be a full scale invasion and more like what we did with Iraq in the 90's; bomb suspected WMD sites.

CNN.com

[pearlophonic]

Why don't they invade China while they're at it? Or France, they actually have nukes.

[Proteas]

So what do you want us to do about it?

[RedSkunk]

I think direct military operations in Iran might be a little extreme. Is there a chance that the US would be able to get away with a bombing campaign of hospitals - no, wait, "WMD facilities"? Sure, there's a chance. But I would think there'd be too much opposition. The most likely scenario, I would think, is intensifying sanctions. Since the US can pretty much bully them through without much strife.

[BeFell]

Hmm... so we are sending in people to find out for sure if Iran is producing nuclear weapons to avoid making the same mistake we made in Iraq. Then if weapons are found they will send in small quick strikes that will have the sole porpose of taking out those weapons.

Iraq was about regime change this is simply about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of a hostile government and the terrorists groups that government is known to support. It looks to me like this situation is completely different and just a quick in and out where we were warned Iraq would be long term. But once again you guys on the left can't get in the truth get in the way of making Bush look bad. Nuclear weapons are meaningless when you have the opportunity to protest Bush. Damn him for winning an election based on federal and Florida state law then somehow figuring out how to steal the popular vote in the next election.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/17/05 02:41 PM, BeFell wrote: It looks to me like this situation is completely different and just a quick in and out where we were warned Iraq would be long term.

Revisionism anyone?

"It is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
- Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, 3/27/03

"Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitch Daniels, 3/28/03

"A year from now I'd be surprised if there's not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after president Bush."
- Richard Perle, 9/22/03

Is it sad that I refuted your babbling with a cartoon?

[BeFell]

The regeme was toppled fairly quickly they just underestimated the reconstuction and we were warned before hand by the president that we would be in Iraq for years.

The fact still remains that Iraq was about regime change where all talk of Iran simply indiactes blowing up a couple of facilities which is done all the time. You guys are trying to find something that isn't there.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/17/05 03:20 PM, BeFell wrote: The regeme was toppled fairly quickly they just underestimated the reconstuction and we were warned before hand by the president that we would be in Iraq for years.

Wait, so they underestimated reconstruction, but the president said we'd be there for years? Is this your way of telling me the military bases in Iraq are permanent? Why don't you come out and say that? Regardless, Iraq wasn't the "cakewalk" that the Bush Administration said it was beforehand.

The fact still remains that Iraq was about regime change where all talk of Iran simply indiactes blowing up a couple of facilities which is done all the time.

The war in Iraq was a preemptive war, preempting a non-existent threat. It wasn't simply about regime change, it was about protecting America. From a non-existent threat.

[BeFell]

At 1/17/05 03:29 PM, red_skunk wrote: Wait, so they underestimated reconstruction, but the president said we'd be there for years? Is this your way of telling me the military bases in Iraq are permanent? Why don't you come out and say that?

They are there until a stable Iraqi government tells us to leave.

Regardless, Iraq wasn't the "cakewalk" that the Bush Administration said it was beforehand.

I haven't disputed this.

The fact still remains that Iraq was about regime change where all talk of Iran simply indiactes blowing up a couple of facilities which is done all the time.

The war in Iraq was a preemptive war, preempting a non-existent threat. It wasn't simply about regime change, it was about protecting America. From a non-existent threat.

Changing the regime was how we intended to eliminate the threat.

[SteveGuzzi]

Can't we just settle this with a rematch between Sergeant Slaughter and the Iron Sheik?

[Ravens-Grin]

At 1/17/05 03:35 PM, BeFell wrote: Changing the regime was how we intended to eliminate the threat.

So to take out a non-existent threat we must do a regime change?

[BeFell]

At 1/17/05 04:02 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

At 1/17/05 03:35 PM, BeFell wrote: Changing the regime was how we intended to eliminate the threat.

So to take out a non-existent threat we must do a regime change?

What kind of slanted truth nonesense are you trying to turn that into? In context I said that changing the leadership in Iraq was the goal because that would eliminate all percieved threats from that country.

[GoldenToe]

At 1/17/05 03:37 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: Can't we just settle this with a rematch between Sergeant Slaughter and the Iron Sheik?

Thats how wars should be fought. Go JOE!

[bcdemon]

What? Iran has nukes? Where does this intel come from, hopefully not the same dipshits that created, err I mean conjured Saddams WMD programs. Fuck it US, why not just nuke the whole damned planet and say every single country was a "possible threat" to your national security. A country with 10,000 nuclear warheads is threatened by a country that MIGHT have one or two, MIGHT HAVE.

Damn, have to find my pic of "Middle America", so fitting now.

[Demosthenez]

One thing I gleaned tha very much disturbed me (just as the entire article did).

"Under the secret plans, the war on terrorism would be led by the Pentagon, and the power of the CIA would be reduced, Hersh wrote in his article."

"Hersh added that the administration has chipped away at the CIA's power and that newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss has overseen a purge of the old order."

Yeah, the last thing Rumsfeld needs is more power. Having this much power under one man is quite disturbing. He will literally have all the guns and all the intelligence. Maybe its a good thing, but it does disturb me some. Ehh, maybe Im being paranoid.

And I really hope Bush doesnt shoot anything at people that are on the verge (if they are not already there) of having nukes. Unless they are POSITIVE Iran means to give nukes to terrorists. Really seems very stupid. We dont need to escalalte our problems 100 fold like this would do.

[Sarek]

I have looked this over, & while I am a strong supporter of Bush, I think Iran will be the next Iraq. However, I think that this is under similar circumstances that Iraq was, only Iran is bigger, & Iran is not the terrorist epicenter that Iraq is. The problem with Iran, is that is where lots of Al-Queda opperatives are, & also, they have an opressive regieme that is remminnicant of Saddam Hussien, Adolf Hitler, & Joseph Stalin. We know Saddam Hussien & Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei [or Ayatollah Khamenei for short] have "Razed villages in a fashion remminniciant of Gengis Kahn" [John Kerry- 4/22/71] so, Iran is quite possibly our next target. The main question is when? before or after Red China? [Click here for more on Red China] Iran IS a target soon, but it is a justified measure.

[Demosthenez]

At 1/17/05 09:40 PM, Sarek wrote: Iran IS a target soon, but it is a justified measure.

No, because we dont need to be taking on the entire world. It is not justified because we are already stretched thin and I am tired of America policing the world.

[bcdemon]

Like I said 2 months ago, Iran is a perfect target, for Bush that is. A vital member of the "Axis of Evil", and yes a supporter of terrorists, although they don't fund teaching of radical islam like the untouched Saudis do. You have somewhere around 150,000 troops in Iraq now, 15,000-20,000 in Afghanistan. I think Rumsfeld and Bush would try it.

4th post down, Middle America could possibly be a reality

[RedSkunk]

The US doesn't have enough spare troops for a ground war in Iran. Period. Private contractors be damned

[commanderkai]

Why do we need ground forces, we should wait until pro-democracy supporters in Iran to stage a uprising and this time, actually SUPPORT it. If the free world doesn't assist and support those brave people, why the hell should the US listen to it?

I know this might be a little while off and might not happen at all, but you have to hope.

[Sarek]

At 1/17/05 09:47 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 1/17/05 09:40 PM, Sarek wrote: Iran IS a target soon, but it is a justified measure.

I am tired of America policing the world.

I am too. Policing the world is the UN's job, & we saw what affective police they were during "Oil-for-food" & at the Rawanda Genoside.

[ReiperX]

At 1/17/05 04:09 PM, BeFell wrote:

?

What kind of slanted truth nonesense are you trying to turn that into? In context I said that changing the leadership in Iraq was the goal because that would eliminate all percieved threats from that country.

There were no threats. Iraq wasn't a threat to its neighbors anymore. Under that logic I should be able to go and shoot some random person that I don't like, and say he was a percieved threat, I thought he was going to invade my house and kill my entire family. Basically what we did with Iraq. We didn't like him, we got rid of him.